I would agree, so neither of us should do that, correct?Twisting what I said said to fit your argument is arguing in bad faith.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I would agree, so neither of us should do that, correct?Twisting what I said said to fit your argument is arguing in bad faith.
News outlets can report, no problem, a lot of these so-called "news organizations" are essentially wings of the Democratic Party.
Once the organizations or people in the organizations start promoting crime they can and should be prosecuted as accessories.
“Promoting crime” is not defined and carries a ton of weight here.News outlets can report, no problem, a lot of these so-called "news organizations" are essentially wings of the Democratic Party. Once the organizations or people in the organizations start promoting crime they can and should be prosecuted as accessories.
Is that a preview of next week's episode of Deportation Theater? Sounds exciting--be sure to tune in.News outlets can report, no problem, a lot of these so-called "news organizations" are essentially wings of the Democratic Party. Once the organizations or people in the organizations start promoting crime they can and should be prosecuted as accessories.
And thisWhat do you mean "abducting without due process"? You mean checking documents and making arrests if they don't have them?
Due process is a feature of the judicial phase, not the executive/enforcement phase (especially with regards to Immigration law)
With regards to the limitations on ICE themselves... They're largely only bound by reasonable suspicion with regards to who they can question and ultimately detain/arrest upon the results of that questioning.
This is right from the Immigrant Defense Project (an organization that's on the side of the undocumented immigrants)
While an ICE officer may not enter a residential home without a judicial warrant, exigent circumstances, or consent, ICE officers are only required to have “reasonable suspicion” (RS) of an immigration violation to initiate a car stop or a detainment for the purposes of questioning in a public place.
See Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 396-97 (2014). Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1357, authorizes ICE officers to interrogate and arrest noncitizens for suspected immigration violations. Under implementing regulations, ICE officers can detain individuals for questioning if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable merits, that the person being questioned is, or is attempting to be, engaged in an offense or is illegally in the United States.” 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(b)
The standard for determining whether an action was justified by reasonable suspicion is an objective one, not dependent on the intentions or motivations of the particular detaining officer. Illinois v. Wardlow, 582 U.S. 119, 123 (2000); see also, e.g., United States v. Singletary, 798 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2015) (examining “the totality of the circumstances through the eyes of a reasonable and cautious officer”).
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884 (1975). Officers may “draw on their own experience and training” in making this judgment, id., looking to factors including:
• Proximity to an international border;
• Patterns of behavior;
• An officer’s previous experience with undocumented individuals;
• An officer’s knowledge of “[r]ecent illegal border crossings in the area”;
• In matters of vehicle stoppages, a driver’s erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade officers;
While some people may suggest it's "Un-PC" to say, the reality is, receiving a tip that there is a factory employing undocumented workers (who's been busted for things like that before) is not "random"... Neither is approaching day laborers standing out front of a Home Depot that's in a city that's close to the US-Mexico border. A reasonable person (who's being honest) would acknowledge the fact that a group of 15 non-English speakers (who are clearly of Mexican descent) standing out in front of a home improvement store in El Paso with a sign that says "trabajo" is significantly more likely to be undocumented than a group of people speaking fluent English in the parking lot of a restaurant in Des Moines Iowa.
People keep saying it's "Random"... if it was random, I would've seen ICE Agents showing up at the Target that's 5 miles from me here in Northeast Ohio and stopping random people.
To be honest, I think the thing that makes some people mad (the people who want to cling to the notion that you can't infer certain things by evaluating certain superficial aspects), is specifically how un-random it is.
The proof of how un-random it actually is demonstrated in the numbers.
When they do these days-long series of nationwide sweeps and apprehend several thousands of people, and it ends up where the overwhelming majority were, indeed, undocumented, with a small handful of mistaken apprehensions, the news outlets are off to the races going on at length about the 3 guys who were mistakenly picked up (and then later released) and conveniently leave out the fact that the other 14,997 were, indeed, what ICE agents suspected.
Meaning it's not random...if it were random it would be a jump ball in terms of the outcome statistics.
Be sure to point it out if/when it happens.I would agree, so neither of us should do that, correct?
Like asking if you support support prosecuting the news reporting on a thing existing, and existing somehow becomes 'advertising'?Be sure to point it out if/when it happens.
That's not twisting what someone said, that's asking a loaded question.Like asking if you support support prosecuting the news reporting on a thing existing, and existing somehow becomes 'advertising'?
Twisting what I said is acting in bad faith.Whatever it takes to condone targeting police officers while assisting lawbreaking.
It is dangerous to publicly track and make available to the public IN REAL TIME the location of any individual who may be a target for harm.So .gov can track our movements in public, but we can't track theirs? Got it.
I assume they were different since left wingers weren’t complaining about their tactics back then.
And this
By Martha McHardy and Billal Rahman
US News Reporter
DHS Condemns Official Who 'Calls for Gang Violence on ICE
![]()
In a video on social media, Cynthia Gonzalez, the vice mayor of Cudahy, a suburb in southeast Los Angeles County, asked why street gangs had not emerged to "help out and organize" against the "biggest gang there is."
In the video, Gonzalez asks where gang members are, and calls on gang leaders to "get your members in order."
It's known as arguing in bad faith.Twisting what I said is acting in bad faith.
It is dangerous to publicly track and make available to the public IN REAL TIME the location of any individual who may be a target for harm.
Or official twitter accounts that post about officers responding to active situations.Just wondering if you feel the same way about Google Maps GPS warning you when there is a speed trap ahead?
Maybe you missed the party about "harm." The idea, at least for conservatives, is to not endanger the life of anyone. Interfering with an operation where there is there is danger, where there is a likelihood of harm, is irresponsible. Were there a rash of assassinations of police officers at speed traps then your example would be irresponsible. Say a terrorist, maybe like the one in the Boston marathon bomb incident, is on the run and someone decided to broadcast the whereabouts of police officers. The guy could evade and kill more people, or he could decided to shoot it out. r take the case of a school shooter, broadcasting the location of officers closing in on him means more students and teachers and cops could be killed.Just wondering if you feel the same way about Google Maps GPS warning you when there is a speed trap ahead?
Perhaps you should watch the CNN clip again. The concept of "harming anyone" or even engagement is not mentioned. What is mentioned is turning away, going in another direction. That would be the avoidance of interaction altogether. The avoidance of "harm", to either party.Maybe you missed the party about "harm." The idea, at least for conservatives, is to not endanger the life of anyone.
agree, which is why avoiding the area entirely is a grand idea. I would rather avoid being anywhere near an operation of such.Interfering with an operation where there is there is danger, where there is a likelihood of harm, is irresponsible.
Do you include Trump supporters literally assaulting law enforcement on January 6, 2020, in this scenario?Were there a rash of assassinations of police officers at speed traps then your example would be irresponsible. Say a terrorist, maybe like the one in the Boston marathon bomb incident, is on the run and someone decided to broadcast the whereabouts of police officers. The guy could evade and kill more people, or he could decided to shoot it out. r take the case of a school shooter, broadcasting the location of officers closing in on him means more students and teachers and cops could be killed.
The purpose does not matter. It is how certain people choose to use it.I venture to say more police officers have been harmed in the line of duty than the record shows of ICE agents being harmed. The purpose of the app is not to bring harm to ICE agents but to avoid harm for persons hiding from them. Google maps can tell us where the state trooper is, our scanner can tell us where the fire department is going or the police are answering a call, but the persons in masks without ID looking for brown people must move in secret? It is the information age and any expectation of privacy is pretty much gone for everyone.