National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (and now ICE)

The Quartermaster said:
The vast amounts of white, liberal, unhinged, women, at these places.
Click to expand...
Understood.

It’s the same population of Minneapolis that votes in the same people election-after-election. Then those same voters complain that the people they are defending, car-jack their Kia’s.

Minneapolis is not a hot bed of illegal immigration, they’re here because our dopy governor pissed off Trump and now he’s trying to punish him. (Yes Trump is that petty).

I’m pro-ICE and appreciate their mission, but similar to most things Trump (whom I voted for) they go-about it in a way that is so over the-top that it makes them difficult to support.
 
Ooh-Rah said:
Minneapolis is not a hot bed of illegal immigration, they’re here because our dopy governor pissed off Trump and now he’s trying to punish him. (Yes
Trump is that petty).
Click to expand...
I'm not at convinced of the bolded part, but agree ICE is here because Walz turned the spotlight on himself.

We're getting a glimpse into the vast depth of fraud that's occurring in the state and I truly believe fraudulent/illegal immigration plays a large role in this problem. We may not be California, but per capital there's clearly something happening here.

Re: the fraud, Michelle Bachmann may be just this side of batshit crazy, but her comments below are spot on:

“Here's the dirty secret that people don't understand about Minnesota. Progressive lawmakers have been inflating Minnesota's budget so they can create grants to fund nonprofits. That ultimately are for their friends, for their supporters, for their constituent groups.

So our state budget is a pass-through entity. It's a financial funnel that goes from federal money, state money, to local money, but it goes through nonprofits."

I also think leftists and those funding agitators are being quite selective with their outrage. Not sure immigration enforcement is quite as aggressive as it's being portrayed, if you believe some of the numbers posted from the Obama administration as an example.
 
Last edited:
Ooh-Rah said:
Understood.

It’s the same population of Minneapolis that votes in the same people election-after-election. Then those same voters complain that the people they are defending, car-jack their Kia’s.

Minneapolis is not a hot bed of illegal immigration, they’re here because our dopy governor pissed off Trump and now he’s trying to punish him. (Yes Trump is that petty).

I’m pro-ICE and appreciate their mission, but similar to most things Trump (whom I voted for) they go-about it in a way that is so over the-top that it makes them difficult to support.
Click to expand...

Seems that Minneapolis is a hot bed of immigrants with conditional status doing illegal shit though. All of these Somalis were brought in by the Obama administration as Asylees.

So, their status can be revoked.
 
I mean, how do Illegal Immigrants get invited to be part of Juries?

It's supposed to be based off of the voter registrations, because that's based off citizens...

Do have a question of sorts though, we all know hearing damage is real and an injury... so if someone's blaring a megaphone in your face... at what point does it actually become assault and you can turn it into a suppository for them?
 
Ranger Psych said:
Immigration enforcement is *slightly* more open. 8 U.S.C. § 1357 is the spot to reference, and I'm not even freddie the feddie.

Snippet for ease of information sharing:

§1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees​

(a) Powers without warrant​

​
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-​
​
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States;​
​
(2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view is entering or attempting to enter the United States in violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so arrested is in the United States in violation of any such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for examination before an officer of the Service having authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter or remain in the United States;​
​
(3) within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States;​
​
(4) to make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest available officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States; and​
​
(5) to make arrests-​
​
(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or​
​
(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony, if the officer or employee is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.​
​
(key regarding drive baby drive, since TECHNICALLY they had committed multiple infractions for road blockages, misdemeanors for interfering with law enforcement, and once instructed to leave the car by a FLEO and instead dropping it into drive to try to flee were in comission of a felony, nevermind the whole there's a FLEO in front of the vehicle in drive with throttle depressed the driver had made eye contact with before throwing it in drive)​

Now, HAVING SAID THAT... does it mean that you can Ze pApErZ everyone you run up on? I'd vote no, not in my country, but I've also literally had Ze PaPeRz done to me in Thailand and Germany because I was speaking english with my friends at a bus stop. I presented DOD ID (which was my in country ID, no passport required for me at that point) and I was on my way... but yeah, I literally got PAPERS from a Polizei duo.

I do understand the use of it and the potentially articulatible in court component as a combination escalation AND deescalation tactic when you're having some random fuckstick run up on you.




I don't know if they're being compensated, but there's people who literally don't have anything better to do than interject themselves into situations they're absolutely not involved in. I don't understand how they can afford to do it other than they're living off of various disabilities etc that doesn't require them to be employed day to day.
Click to expand...

This is misleading, Immigration officers have huge authorities...at the border, a port of entry (Airport/waterway), not at what's going on now.

Reference: DOJ Criminal Prosecutors manual.

1917. Arrest, Search, And Seizure By Immigration Officers​

The general rules concerning arrest, search and seizure applicable to other federal officers are, of course, applicable to immigration officers. The Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., authorizes immigration officers to make arrests either for the purpose of holding an alien for civil administrative proceedings or for a crime, or both. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1225 provides that all aliens arriving at United States ports must be examined by immigration officers who are authorized, without a warrant, to board and search any conveyances believed to carry aliens, and to detain for further inquiry anyone "who may not appear . . . at the port of arrival to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land." Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) authorizes the arrest upon warrant of the Attorney General of any alien, pending a determination of his/her deportability. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c) authorizes arrest of an alien at any time within six months after a final order of deportation has been entered. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b) authorizes immigration officers to seize, without a warrant, conveyances used to transport illegal aliens. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1357 sets out their authority to interrogate, arrest, search, and seize aliens without a warrant.

Subsection 1357(a)(1) of Title 8, authorizing immigration officers "to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States," has a deceiving simplicity. It is deceiving because in practice the courts have strained to give the section a reasonable and meaningful interpretation in light of the Fourth Amendment. The appellate courts have evinced a reluctance to believe that such interrogations occur without a detention, however brief. Since there is usually some kind of stop or detention, the question arises as to whether immigration officers may stop persons reasonably believed to be aliens when there is no reason to believe they are illegally in the country. The Supreme Court has declined to give that question a general answer. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 n. 9 (1975). However, it has answered the question with respect to "factory surveys," that is, worksite inspections to discover illegal aliens. See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984).
 
Ooh-Rah said:
Understood.

It’s the same population of Minneapolis that votes in the same people election-after-election. Then those same voters complain that the people they are defending, car-jack their Kia’s.

Minneapolis is not a hot bed of illegal immigration, they’re here because our dopy governor pissed off Trump and now he’s trying to punish him. (Yes Trump is that petty).

I’m pro-ICE and appreciate their mission, but similar to most things Trump (whom I voted for) they go-about it in a way that is so over the-top that it makes them difficult to support.
Click to expand...
Trump petty.
How about the 4 years between his administration's?
I'd be petty too.
 
While trying to nail Trump down with several BS trials, the media was repeating over and over that if Trump came back into office he would go after his political rivals.

I'm glad to see him play the reverse Uno card.
 
Kraut783 said:
This is misleading, Immigration officers have huge authorities...at the border, a port of entry (Airport/waterway), not at what's going on now.

Reference: DOJ Criminal Prosecutors manual.

1917. Arrest, Search, And Seizure By Immigration Officers​

The general rules concerning arrest, search and seizure applicable to other federal officers are, of course, applicable to immigration officers. The Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., authorizes immigration officers to make arrests either for the purpose of holding an alien for civil administrative proceedings or for a crime, or both. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1225 provides that all aliens arriving at United States ports must be examined by immigration officers who are authorized, without a warrant, to board and search any conveyances believed to carry aliens, and to detain for further inquiry anyone "who may not appear . . . at the port of arrival to be clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to land." Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) authorizes the arrest upon warrant of the Attorney General of any alien, pending a determination of his/her deportability. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c) authorizes arrest of an alien at any time within six months after a final order of deportation has been entered. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324(b) authorizes immigration officers to seize, without a warrant, conveyances used to transport illegal aliens. Title 8 U.S.C. § 1357 sets out their authority to interrogate, arrest, search, and seize aliens without a warrant.

Subsection 1357(a)(1) of Title 8, authorizing immigration officers "to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States," has a deceiving simplicity. It is deceiving because in practice the courts have strained to give the section a reasonable and meaningful interpretation in light of the Fourth Amendment. The appellate courts have evinced a reluctance to believe that such interrogations occur without a detention, however brief. Since there is usually some kind of stop or detention, the question arises as to whether immigration officers may stop persons reasonably believed to be aliens when there is no reason to believe they are illegally in the country. The Supreme Court has declined to give that question a general answer. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 n. 9 (1975). However, it has answered the question with respect to "factory surveys," that is, worksite inspections to discover illegal aliens. See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Delgado, 466 U.S. 210 (1984).
Click to expand...
That's a really long way to say, "What ICE is doing now might be questioned, but the answer has never been given by a higher court."

The aforementioned code isn't "deceiving" or "overly simple". The language posted does make something very clear; we are currently forced to have this conversation because Mayorkas and the previous administration created conditions that made enforcement of 1101, 1225, 1252(a) and 1252(c) unreasonable/impossible.

As always, I found the easiest fix.

If the previous admin didn't allow 10-20M illegals into the interior of the country with a summons for "sometime in the future", we wouldn't need ICE to do what they're doing now, and this conversation wouldn't need to happen. But, the handwrigning can continue because people cant see past thier nose.
 
Breaking News: Entire American Population Achieves Full Certification in Police Use of Force • The Havok Journal | Military & Veteran News, Commentary, Culture

"It happened fast. One minute, people were struggling to explain the difference between a felony and a Filet-O-Fish. The next, they were confidently citing Supreme Court precedent, departmental policy, biomechanics, psychology, constitutional law, and “what my cousin would’ve done,” all while typing with one thumb."
Click to expand...



1768430666874.png
 
amlove21 said:
That's a really long way to say, "What ICE is doing now might be questioned, but the answer has never been given by a higher court."

The aforementioned code isn't "deceiving" or "overly simple". The language posted does make something very clear; we are currently forced to have this conversation because Mayorkas and the previous administration created conditions that made enforcement of 1101, 1225, 1252(a) and 1252(c) unreasonable/impossible.

As always, I found the easiest fix.

If the previous admin didn't allow 10-20M illegals into the interior of the country with a summons for "sometime in the future", we wouldn't need ICE to do what they're doing now, and this conversation wouldn't need to happen. But, the handwrigning can continue because people cant see past thier nose.
Click to expand...

Agree that the situation made it boil over to this point, but we cannot just violate the fourth amendment routinely.

This kind of thing allows the slippery slope that will start spilling over into everyday law enforcement...not sure we want that in the long run.

but, this is just my two cents.....
 
Can we all at least agree that she and the group she was a part of, did nothing to make the situation better? And that her being there actively a part of it, was her own undoing that she herself is to blame for?

While we are at it, no one on social media saying she should not have been killed for it, has yet to give me an explanation when challenged, on how to stop a driver at close range from using their vehicle as a ram without directly taking out the driver. I've asked for sources, citations from actual events, SOP's, something that wasn't armchair second guessing on a fight or flight response and wasn't using fallacies, as no, the handgun won't stop the engine in time and is a bad choice to use for this, and taking out the tires is a myth and a very bad lie. No takers, as to what I expected since talk is cheap without subject matter expertise.
 
A good cop would have aimed for the passenger side 'b pillar'
...by targeting the passenger side, the round could have richoceted into the ignition switch and shut the car off
...THEN shoot the tires out
...THEN put a low pressure pistol round through the engine block
...THEN shoot the suspect in the leg to keep them from fleeing on foot

THEN - and ONLY then - If all of those measures fail, its ok to intentionally kill an innocent bystander that did absolutely wrong in cold blood

It's what I would have done if it I was in that situation.
 

Similar threads

A
Review Mafia, Murder, Hollywood, WWII, MACV-SOG, and Florida (Plus Whatever Else)
Replies
1
Views
103
Kraut783
Kraut783
Marauder06
Now We're Adding Another $100 ***BILLION*** to the National Debt
Replies
7
Views
1K
LimaPanther
LimaPanther
MikeDelta
Question regarding Special Forces UW & FID Training and Equipment (unclassified)
Replies
4
Views
2K
MikeDelta
MikeDelta
Marauder06
Veteran Perspectives On The GWOT, and What Comes After
2 3
Replies
40
Views
6K
Teufel
Teufel
Ooh-Rah
Enlistment to SOF - The ShadowSpear Way
Replies
1
Views
4K
Ooh-Rah
Ooh-Rah
Back
Top