The official ICE abusing American citizens thread

[Voluntarist]

this is nothing new - nor is it unique to the feds (such as ICE),

But what is new is posters on this message board defending it ... and referring to it as a "minor inconvenience". It may be just a single poster, but the lack of others speaking against it (who would speak against in in the other cases you mention) is deafening. I'd expect them to be saying something along the lines of "Yeah, we need secure borders, but not at this price". And it leads me to believe that they're just fine with "that price".

Objections to this type of law enforcement over-reach appear to becoming just as situational here as they are among "Minneapolis leaders, et al."

 

[nikcers]

But what is new is posters on this message board defending it

Modern problems require modern solutions.

Whats not new is people trying to destroy the United States.

The revolution never ends.

 

[Invisible Man]

The right to self defense against the people who are part of the organization that we call federal government has extraordinary legal standards to prove.

It only has the same prerequisites as any other use of lethal force. Their position in the government doesn't shield them from that.

Fortunately, there are 28 states that already recognize this in their laws.

 

[nikcers]

It only has the same prerequisites as any other use of lethal force. Their position in the government doesn't shield them from that.

Fortunately, there are 28 states that already recognize this in their laws.

28 states can make laws that are unconditional and therefore unconstitutional but that doesn't mean they can enforce them.

What matters in the case of the law is whether or not you can enforce them.

28 states can not overthrow the federal government. The best they can do is create anarchy and create an unwinnable war in regions of the United States that will be hell on earth.

It's the same reason why a global government can't enforce their laws against us. We have enough guns to make such efforts futile.

 

[nikcers]

"Yeah, we need secure borders, but not at this price". And it leads me to believe that they're just fine with "that price".

I have had friends and family murdered by foreign nationals invading my country.

They are interfering in my country's elections and taking my country from my family and friends.

How many more have to die for it to be an acceptable price to you so that you don't have to show your identification?

 

[Invisible Man]

28 states can make laws that are unconditional and therefore unconstitutional but that doesn't mean they can enforce them.

What matters in the case of the law is whether or not you can enforce them.

28 states can not overthrow the federal government. The best they can do is create anarchy and create an unwinnable war in regions of the United States that will be hell on earth.

It's the same reason why a global government can't enforce their laws against us. We have enough guns to make such efforts futile.

If people defended themselves with lethal force, pursuant to state laws whose constitutionality the federal government does not dispute, against criminals who happen to work for the federal government committing crimes against them in violation of laws whose constitutionality the federal government does not dispute, I don't see much that the federal government would do to stop these people from doing what is perfectly legal.

 

[nikcers]

If people defended themselves with lethal force, pursuant to state laws whose constitutionality the federal government does not dispute, against criminals who happen to work for the federal government committing crimes against them in violation of laws whose constitutionality the federal government does not dispute, I don't see much that the federal government would do to stop these people from doing what is perfectly legal.

You can't just put a badge on and overthrow the federal government.

There are some legal hurdles in the way of doing that as seen in the civil war.

 

[Invisible Man]

You can't just put a badge on and overthrow the federal government.

There are some legal hurdles in the way of doing that as seen in the civil war.

Who said anything about overthrowing the federal government?

 

[nikcers]

Who said anything about overthrowing the federal government?

Well I don't think you can use the argument of self defense to use unreasonable lethal force against the federal government when they are acting in pursuit of enforcing our federal laws.

If you believe that you can then I hope someone will help you reconsider such behavior before you hurt someone and perhaps you should consult with a lawyer first.

 

[Invisible Man]

Well I don't think you can use the argument of self defense to use unreasonable lethal force against the federal government when they are acting in pursuit of enforcing our federal laws.

If you believe that you can then I hope someone will help you reconsider such behavior before you hurt someone and perhaps you should consult with a lawyer first.

I never advocated any unreasonable use of lethal force, only reasonable use of lethal force that is explicitly permitted by constitutional laws. If someone commits a crime, their being an employee of the federal government claiming that they were acting in pursuit of enforcing federal laws (even though they were demonstrably acting unlawfully) does not shield them from the consequences of those crimes.

 

[nikcers]

I never advocated any unreasonable use of lethal force, only reasonable use of lethal force that is explicitly permitted by constitutional laws. If someone commits a crime, their being an employee of the federal government claiming that they were acting in pursuit of enforcing federal laws (even though they were demonstrably acting unlawfully) does not shield them from the consequences of those crimes.

Well any use of force would have to be argued as reasonable in a court of law. We are a nation of laws.

We have certain government policys that we decide through elections.

You have the right to disagree with the policy but if you don't have the votes you can't change it.

If you unalive someone and its a federal crime to unalive people working for the federal government be prepared to defend yourself in a federal court of law.

Your own interpretation of the constitution likely won't make a winning legal defense in federal court for the charge of the use of unreasonable force.

The federal government will absolutely use reasonable force to defend themselves.

You wont have a winning legal defense without extraordinary evidence.

Your own interpretation of the constitution just isn't necessarily going to be what the judicial branch of our government understands it to be.

It didn't work for Peter Schiff's dad.

Irwin Schiff - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Occam's Banana]

But what is new is posters on this message board defending it ... and referring to it as a "minor inconvenience". It may be just a single poster,[..]

To be fair, on the rare occasion that I even bother reading anything he posts, his own rambling incoherence often seems to be the best and most effective argument against him. Speaking for myself, I rarely see any point in spinning my wheels in his mud - which is why I almost never reply to him, regardless of how egregious he's being. Others seem to enjoy it, though. To each his own, I guess.

[...] but the lack of others speaking against it (who would speak against in in the other cases you mention) is deafening. I'd expect them to be saying something along the lines of "Yeah, we need secure borders, but not at this price". And it leads me to believe that they're just fine with "that price".

Objections to this type of law enforcement over-reach appear to becoming just as situational here as they are among "Minneapolis leaders, et al."

Sad, but true.

I do find the "Minneapolis leaders, et al." (as well as their counterparts on the right) to be significantly more objectionable, though. Unlike us Internet rando-schmuck malcontents (even those of us who "look the other way" when it suits) , they actually wield some degree of power. They could do something about it, if they actually cared to - but they won't. At least, not unless and until it dovetails with the ambitions and objectives of their "side" - and even then, only to the extent that it curtails the influence and power of the other "side", but not their own. That's why they often get bent out of shape at the federals (when they're not the ones in charge of them), but rarely at the locals under their own watch, who routinely do the same things as a matter of course.

 

[nikcers]

To be fair, on the rare occasion that I even bother reading anything he posts, his own rambling incoherence often seems to be the best and most effective argument against him. Speaking for myself, I rarely see any point in spinning my wheels in his mud - which is why I almost never reply to him, regardless of how egregious he's being. Others seem to enjoy it, though. To each his own, I guess.



Sad, but true.

I do find the "Minneapolis leaders, et al." (as well as their counterparts on the right) to be significantly more objectionable, though. Unlike us Internet rando-schmuck malcontents (even those of us who "look the other way" when it suits) , they actually wield some degree of power. They could do something about it, if they actually cared to - but they won't. At least, not unless and until it dovetails with the ambitions and objectives of their "side" - and even then, only to the extent that it curtails the influence and power of the other "side", but not their own. That's why they often get bent out of shape at the federals (when they're not the ones in charge of them), but rarely at the locals under their own watch, who routinely do the same things as a matter of course.

Im just not a reality denier. Your argument is effectively the government has no authority to use force because I dont give them my permission.

The government simply has the power to do it as long as they remain the government in power.

I reject your reality and substitute my own isn't a real argument.

 

[Invisible Man]

Well any use of force would have to be argued as reasonable in a court of law. We are a nation of laws.

Yes. And in states with stand-your-ground laws, this can be done, which is why I posted the link to that list.

It may come down to how statist vs. libertarian the inclinations of the jury are. But speaking for myself, if I'm ever on a jury of someone charged with a crime just because they legitimately exercised their right to self-defense against a government agent, I will relish the opportunity to find them not guilty.

 

[Invisible Man]

Im just not a reality denier. Your argument is effectively the government has no authority to use force because I dont give them my permission.

I think all people have a right to use force under certain circumstances. This includes people who happen to be employed by the government. But their being employed by the government doesn't grant them a special authority to use force that other ordinary people don't have. The people can only delegate authority to the government if they themselves already have that authority in the first place.

 

[nikcers]

I think all people have a right to use force under certain circumstances. This includes people who happen to be employed by the government. But their being employed by the government doesn't grant them a special authority to use force that other ordinary people don't have. The people can only delegate authority to the government if they themselves already have that authority in the first place.

Yeah and thats not what the reality says. The reality is we don't have a libertarian government.

Atleast thats not how I understand reality to be. Perhaps I could be understanding wrong but I double checked with several other of the smartest people I know and they all agreed that we don't have a libertarian government.

So that means that even if you believe any time a government uses force its wrong like some libertarians do- that doesn't mean they don't have the power to do it.

Maybe one day a majority of our country will change their minds and vote for a government that's libertarian but its never happened before and I know sometimes things happen that haven't happened before and it is a possibility but in other words anything is possible and I could win the lottery 420 times in a row but its not likely.

In other words the government in power has the power to use force because the people have given them that power.

Thats a power that the people have because the people have absolute power in our country. Our government is (power of the people)

 

[nikcers]

Yes. And in states with stand-your-ground laws, this can be done, which is why I posted the link to that list.

It may come down to how statist vs. libertarian the inclinations of the jury are. But speaking for myself, if I'm ever on a jury of someone charged with a crime just because they legitimately exercised their right to self-defense against a government agent, I will relish the opportunity to find them not guilty.

There won't be a trial with you alive in it if you shoot at the federal government the federal government is going to shoot back.

So unless you have 300% more guns than the government comes at you with its going to be a bloodbath if you attack them.

Trump will deploy the marines if he has to.

 

[acptulsa]

It wasn't racism. We were a white country.

Mechahitler lives!

 

[nikcers]

Mechahitler lives!

Hitler was a German National Socialist.

I just love the American people and want them to live their best lives.

 

[acptulsa]

I just love the American people and want them to live their best lives.

I have two solid reasons to doubt you're an American human. One is, American humans never explain to people that the reason they're using improper English is because Americans don't use proper English. The other is because American humans who don't use proper English add apostrophes to words that ought not have them. Americans love apostrophes so much they call them apostrophe's. None would ever take them out of literally everything.