Posted by duxup 1/27/2026
As many have already stated, Signal is overwhelmingly secure. More secure than any other alternative with similar viability here.
If the feds were actually concerned about that, publicly "investigating" Signal chats is a great way to drive activists to less secure alternatives, while also benefiting from scattering activist comms.
Don't write anything that you don't want LEO to read.
https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/nyt-6-federal-prosecutor...
We are through the looking glass, folks. This will be dropped and ignored like so many other outrages unless we demand answers from Congress, and hold SCOTUS responsible for partisan abdication of their constitutional duties.
You can demand answers from Congress, but until a significant portion of the GOP base demands answers, they are just going to ignore your demands. As of now 39% of Americans support the administration. Also, you can't hold SCOTUS responsible, only Congress can.
A lot of people that care a lot about the 2nd amendment saw the photo of Pretti's gun on the ICE rental car seat, and they saw a well-used, well-cared-for weapon that was clean and seen a lot time at the range. They saw that it can happen to somebody just like them.
They conveniently forgot their excuses for Rittenhouse. Guess they all changed their mind and think he should be arrested.
Police messed up and someone got killed. I feel like outrage is warranted if nothing is done about it, but after seeing the videos I’m fairly confident this won’t get swept under the rug. Will we retract our outrage when a conviction is delivered? Is there a reason we expect nothing to come of this?
News cycles go fast. Outrage is quickly forgotten. Now more than ever, as there are new outrages coming on the heels of the last.
No you're not. You're choosing words like 'hysteria' to delegitimize others' opinions while striking a posture of disinterested neutrality.
ICE, a federal agency and not a state or municipal police force, had a man face down and unarmed. There were what, half a dozen of them? He was completely subdued. They then shot him in the back.
This was not a “mistake.” This was murder.
The way ICE was engaging initially did appear unreasonably hostile from the context that I saw, though the videos I saw did not appear to contain the entire engagement. Also police should be trained well enough to not panic in that situation, ideally. But it really doesn’t seem as simple as “random street execution” based on what I’ve seen.
I am actually pretty understanding of the pressures that LEO’s face and how unless I actually experience it I can’t fully get it, despite my political leanings. But that video was truly something to behold and I regret seeing it frankly.
This wasn’t a warzone. This was a bunch of “trained” federal agents subduing one person and then deciding to kill him. Blame poor training, blame poor judgment, it doesn’t matter. If this is what we are to expect in a situation like that, then ICE needs to withdraw and be held accountable.
All of this in the name of enforcing borders with our southern neighbors…in Minnesota? Which definitely bears mentioning, because clearly ICE was sent there to retaliate against Walz and not actually as some sort of legitimate effort to deal with illegal border crossings. The insult to injury of all this is this man died ultimately because Trump wanted to sent Walz a message.
This is the key disagreement. Making this statement requires mind reading and it isn’t something we can assert one way or the other. We can only look at the evidence and make a guess.
For me, when I assess situations like this, I try to find an explanation that doesn’t require anyone to be cartoonishly evil, since very few people are actually cartoonishly evil in practice. In this case, similar to aviation incidents, there are two cascading failures, neither of which in isolation would have resulted in death, but both of which together did.
Speaking of aviation, it would probably help if there was an NTSB style agency for police killings. If there was an analysis of that type presented publicly I think it could make people feel better.
They shot an unarmed, subdued civilian in the back multiple times while he was facedown. What mind reading is necessary here?
People do foolish things when they panic. And the question is panicked mistake vs intentional murder.
My mind does anchor on things that feel too low probability to be a coincidence. The very odd “gun gun gun” shout immediately before the shooting, which very clearly could induce panic, is just a coincidence and had nothing to do with the shooting? And instead they just maniacally decided to kill him, coincidentally immediately after hearing “gun gun gun”.
Like it seems like this structure does not cause your brain to prioritize “gun gun gun” as a likely explanation. Do we just have different mental heuristics? Like I wouldn’t say that this is proof, just that it is my default explanation and that I need reasonably strong evidence to end up with a different default. I wonder what causes you to end up with the other default?
In a nutshell, to date, US ICE & DHS interactions have resulted in 10 people shot **, 3 people killed, and established a pattern of high level officials immediately blatently lying and contradicting video evidence.
That pattern includes obvious attempts to avoid investigation, to excuse people involved, to not investigate the bigger picture of how interactions are staged such that civilian deaths are inevitable.
It's good to see the citizens of the US dig in and demand that federal forces and federal heads of agencies be held accountable for clearly screwed up deployments and behaviours.
** My apologies, I just saw a Wash Post headliine that indicates it is now 16 shootings that are being actively swept under a rug.
The entire fact that ICE is in Minnesota instead of a border state with heavier illegal immigration on patrols performing illegal 4th-amendment violating door to door raids is already a complete abomination in the face of American’s rights and their constitution.
And you disapprove of outrage over an innocent man being extrajudicially executed in the face of all of this?
Let me know how the boot tasted so at least I can learn something from this
Can you share what source you’re using for this? I don’t really know how we could definitively know this happened, and I’m extremely skeptical of most media outlets at this point because I have observed them lying nonstop for years.
> The entire fact that ICE is in Minnesota instead of a border state
I believe the official reply to this is that border states such as Texas are cooperating with ICE so there hasn’t been much drama there. That sounds plausible to me. As far as I know they are actively removing people from border states also, and I’m not aware of the people being removed from Minnesota being greater than those removed from Texas relative to state population or number of illegals. Have you seen that actually quantified somewhere?
> And you disapprove of outrage over an innocent man being extrajudicially executed
The police make mistakes sometimes. They always have. As long as the process to hold the individuals accountable is followed, I don’t really see what the big deal is, relative to any other time in history. Of course it is a big deal for the people involved and their families and friends, I’m just speaking from the perspective of third parties such as myself and the people I’ve observed in hysterics over this and various other events in the past years.
> Let me know how the boot tasted
I’m not in any proximity to whatever boots are or aren’t coming down, unless we buy into the “every mean-feeling action is a slippery slope to fascism” angle, which personally I do not. We are very far in the direction of permissiveness on immigration and rule of law generally. If we just rolled back to the laws and culture of 1900 for example, this would be tremendously further than anything Trump has hinted at doing. Like for much of American history most people being deported wouldn’t have been allowed to be citizens, at all, no matter how long they were here. It was only about 100 years ago that there was a Supreme Court case testing whether Indians were white for the purposes of citizenship. They weren’t, and they were deported. It’s like people’s view of American history starts in the 1960s. If we reverted to 1850 laws it wouldn’t be some kind of insane totalitarianism, even though that would be going miles and miles and miles further than we are today. It’s like everyone has been led to believe that our own history is evil.
One hint that things are weird is that if you think about the views of the average American man from 1940, the people in hysterics now would regard him as a fascist, which is obviously ahistorical, particularly since everyone’s fascism benchmarks come specifically from that era. The culture has shifted in ways that really don’t make any sense.
They wear masks, don’t get warrants before entering houses, regularly arrest American citizens, and are operating far from anything a reasonable person would call an immigration or customs checkpoint.
Also, they’ve been ordered in public (by Trump) and private (by superiors) to violate the law, and have been promised “absolute immunity” for their crimes (by Trump).
One other thing: Trump and his administration have made it clear (in writing) that ICE’s mission in Minnesota is to terrorize the public until Governor Walz makes a bunch of policy changes that the courts have declined to force. So, there’s no reasonable argument to be made that they’re acting as law enforcement.
I doubt the Trump DOJ will want to prosecute this. Now, if Democrats win in 2028, maybe the Newsom (or whoever) DOJ will-but Trump might just give everyone involved a pardon on the way out the door. And I doubt a state prosecution would survive the current SCOTUS majority.
So yes, there are decent reasons to suspect “nothing to come of this” in the purely legal domain. Obviously it is making an impact in the political domain.
Britain tried to tax Americans without government representation, and they started sending the tax man home naked and covered in tar, feathers, and third-degree burns. These stories are then taught to schoolchildren as examples of how Americans demand freedom above all else.
If the powers that be keep doing whatever they want without consequence, eventually there will be consequences, and those consequences very well could be the act of being physically removed from their ivory towers and vivisected in the streets.
To kill or utterly destroy a large group of enemies with an extreme overabundance of weapons and items, including throwing knives to the head, poison, stabs to the neck or back, kicks to the chest, shoves off of high ledges, multiple headshots, artillery, panzer rockets, flames, dynamite, mines, construction pliers, airstrikes, or even slamming a door into someone's chest. Wolfensteining a group of enemies requires that every kill be performed using a different method
you are calling for extreme violence?
> an epic creature that will shoot fire at you if you get near it. you can usually find one outside or near/in a house. its main abilities are to chomp and scratch but they can also pounce, shoot lasers out of their eyes, be cute, jump as high as they want, and fly. do not fight one unless you are equipped with extreme power armor and heavy assault cannons. […]
I was informing the community what the word means after putting in the effort to look it up.
If you are not curious, if you can't handle differences of opinion, you don't belong here.
> I think that is what he is doing, I think it's an accurate expression of his thinking.
It isn’t. It is like saying “you can do that but you will eventually get beat up.” That is not saying “people should beat you up.” There is a world of difference in those 2 statements. Your accusation hinges on the worst possible - debatably possible at best tbh - interpretation of their statement. It is bait, it is dishonest, and you’re being intentional about it.
This is not a difference of opinion, this is not curiosity, you are just being difficult.
People resigned to send the message to the public: the integrity of the office had been compromised, and the lawyers (lawyers!!) couldn't stay due to their ethics. This is a difficult thing to understand for people that lack ethics.
If you boss asks you to do something that is a legitimate request, and you refuse for personal reasons, that's on you.
It is in no way "corruption".
Reported for personal attack.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/politics/military-poli...
The opinion to allow visa holders as the Turkish person to exercise political activism is funny, too. Don't you think it's the citizens who the country should look after?
Europe is confused, but is finally coming around to understanding that they need to be able to protect themselves. Let's hope we make it on time :).
You can't really turn around climate without China and India. You may try to cripple yourself to attempt it though, but you'll lose even harder then.
I can also tell you that I've seen public funding on various science projects in EU. While it's convenient for the scientists to live off of these projects, then rarely if ever does much or any value come out of it. No companies nor products. Most of the "digital product" is provided to us by US companies, we don't come even close to having anything like it. EU leaders also somehow think that economic development is a matter of their "decision", but as career public servants they have little to no private experience, and just run public funds in "social circuits" that don't produce much.
Objectively.
It's similar to the protesters interfering with law enforcement doing their work: you can't protest anywhere at any time. If you take this strict view of the constitution, you could do many currently illegal things, e.g get out of prison by simply hugging a prison guard and following him out, saying that you are protesting in this particular way; say that you are protesting 24/7 and whistle or make other noises throughout the night, which otherwise would be violate noise ordinance. And so on and so on.
Edit: This video explains it well further: https://youtu.be/QePoawDA_48?si=0mr-lMR_lIRoBDA_
But, yeah, any state prosecutions (likely especially the first) is going to (1) get removed to federal court, and (2) go through a wringer of federal litigation, likely reaching the Supreme Court, over Supremacy Clause immunity before much substantive happens on anything else.
OTOH, the federal duty at issue in in re Neagle was literally protecting the life of a Supreme Court justice riding circuit, as much as the present Court may have a pro-Trump bias, I wouldn't count on it being as strong of a bias as it had in Neagle.
Therefore there is considerable leverage for allied servants to form an alliance that more or less offers their allegiance in exchange for non-prosecution. I would expect especially DHS to basically become a non-functional (or even seditious) department if they prosecute those guys and they could purposefully make the president look bad by making his security apparatus look incompetent.
Won't help if the prosecuting sovereignty isn't the one they work for (state vs federal charges.)
Also won't work if the agency is disbanded and they are dismissed en masse before the prosecution happens.
Unless, as Doge showed us, you ignore the law, fire them anyway, and the SCOTUS says, "Yeah, whatever."
See where this is going ?
I admit, US propaganda is very good at projecting an image of strength. I strongly doubt it is prepared for a civil ground war, based on all available evidence. It cannot even keep other nation states out of critical systems. See fragile systems for what they are.
If you're imagining a large scale revolt, figure that the revolutionaries will be outnumbered by counter-revolutionaries, even without the military. (Which would also include police forces amounting to millions more.)
https://www.kff.org/from-drew-altman/trump-voters-on-medicai...
https://kffhealthnews.org/morning-breakout/voters-in-trump-c...
The person in front said "I've got the gun, I've got the gun", and I can tell that quite clearly in the videos.
> here antifa community organizers are escalating non stop in hopes that someone dies [...] in hopes they can radicalize people
I think this rhetorical frame highlights how many people don't believe in protest. Expressing disdain for trampling of civil liberties is not 'escalation' any more than the curtailment of fourth amendment rights that inspire the protests.
I am not attacking you (I believe we should all be able to express how we feel with respect to the government). I just want to highlight a reason why you may feel that this level of unrest is meant to "radicalize people".
That means there is an even better version that what I saw and heard which means normies will figure out fairly quick this was not malicious intent. Perhaps malicious incompetency but certainly not an intentional execution.
I just want to highlight a reason why you may feel that this level of unrest is meant to "radicalize people".
I would accept that if these were just protesters, stood at the side of the road holding up signs but a number of them are far from it. They have formed military squads, dox agents and attack them at home and in their personal vehicles, coordinate their attacks between multiple groups of "vetted" agitators. They are tracking their personal vehicles and their family members. They are blocking traffic and forcing people out of their cars. At best this is an insurgency being coordinated from out-of-state agitators and at the behest of the state governor. They are egging people on to break numerous laws, obstruct federal agents, throw bricks at agents or anyone they think is an agent, use bull-horns at full volume in the ears of anyone supporting the agents. I could go on for hours regarding all the illegal shenanigans. So yeah these are people trying to radicalize others and trying to get people hurt or killed. This is primarily occurring in sanctuary cities where the government is actively encouraging their citizens to attack federal agents. That is not even close to anything that resembles protesting and is not anywhere near a protected right.
I also blame President Trump for not invoking the insurrection act and curtailing this very early on.
My main question is how you might frame the protests (comprising legal and potentially illegal behaviors) in the context of how the US was founded, or in the French revolutions. Were we in the 1750s, would your assessment about how to go about protesting be the same?
Here, I'm not making arguments about what is or is not similar, just trying to understand how you view historical political upheaval from the perspective of the people who lived in those times.
edit: https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/01/27/congress/pr...
Apparently the agents yelled 'he's got a gun'
The founding of the nation was far more violent and laws were sparse but I am sure you know how complex of a question you are asking. There are multi-volume books and movies created around that mess. I would never want a return to those times and behaviors that we are purportedly evolved beyond.
What I do not understand is why people in some cities are defending violent illegal immigrants. I am told it is for voting purposes to get more delegates but it can't really be worth it. At least in my opinion it would not be worth it. All of that said I am not in favor of kicking people out that have been here for decades and that had properly integrated into our society. That I could see people protesting if they were in fact just protesting.
My issue with the current tactics is a loss of our Bill of Rights privileges (note this doesn't depend on citizenship), which really can only go poorly from here.
> What I do not understand is why people in some cities are defending violent illegal immigrants.
There's an easy argument about maintaining Constitutional rights for every person—once we stop doing that, we're essentially finished as a democracy.
The majority of people being removed are not criminals of any sort whatsoever. It's tricky to get data about this as DHS is releasing very political statements[1] but many have been in the US for decades and have no criminal records in Minnesota. Also, Minnesota is not a liberal state—being a Democrat means different things in different parts of the country, and things are quite 'centrist' there; I say this to discourage porting sensibilities from other states.
1. DHS Highlights Worst of the Worst Criminal Illegal Aliens Arrested in Minnesota Yesterday Including Murderers, Drug Traffickers, and an Illegal Alien with TWENTY-FOUR Convictions - (this is the title of the relevant webpage)
edit - To distill my perspective, I am worried that we will lose our rights, not because I am alarmist, but because this has happened in several democracies this century, notably Turkey (but also cf Hungary, Poland, the Philipnes). Even amongst undemocratic nations, strongmen are upending institutions (China, but also more recently in West Africa).
The only way the US can escape is by continually standing up for what rights we still have.
Most are not violent.[1] Many of them are “here for decades and that had properly integrated into our society” just like you said, or are attempting to integrate and be here legally, so people are defending them. If the government can trample one group over the worst crimes of a few of its members, it can trample any group for any reason, so we must stand together to protect our freedom.
[1] https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convi...
ICE is not targeting violent illegal immigrants. They are targeting legal residents, immigrants with pending asylum cases that allow them to stay, US citizens that happen to look like immigrants maybe, people that are legally recording their activities in public from a safe distance, all kinds of people really.
they are protesting masked armed thugs running around their neighborhood smashing windows and dragging people out of cars because they happen to feel like it. running up to people and pepper spraying them in eyes for saying things they dont like. and yes, shooting them.
I think everyone can understand someone saying 'wtf, no' in those circumstances. except you.
Some people say "he was a protestor and protestors who bring a gun to a protest deserve to be shot (FAFO)".
You say he's not a protestor, so as an observer he deserves to be shot because somehow he was interfering.
And your characterization of citizens forming "military squads" is also fascinating. What does that mean to you, in detail? Does it mean... uniforms? central coordination? simulated exercises? None of those are the case here.
Who are the out of state agitators?
Why do you think the governor is involved? I think you've been watching a lot of Cam Higby & friends. This is their rhetoric. And I know some ppl who've changed their name to Tim on Signal to troll you back.
Feel free to listen to the actual speeches of Mayors Kaohly Her and Jacob Frey. They have consistently urged staying peaceful and resisting the provocations to violence of both the agents and outside provocateurs. They know we're under the knife of the Insurrection Act and everything is under a microscope. We know it too.
The incredulity that people like you have about the level of organization points to your lack of involvement in your own communities. Have you ever organized a PTA fundraiser to raise $25,000 for school activities? Have you ever had to sign up three children across one daycare, an elementary school, and a middle school for summer camp activities, six months in advance, coordinating all the different schedules? Let me tell you -- doing these things develops a lot of skills that then carry over very easily into organizing a patrol at pick-up and drop-off at the Spanish immersion daycare. That's the "military force" you're up against. In my neighborhood an old lady organized her senior building to send people over to stand around the Spanish immersion daycare daily, because ICE/CBP keep showing up even though all the employees have work authorization and have been background checked.
You're right: it's not protesting. It's just showing up for your neighbors. Bearing witness, even in a Christian sense.
At this point I think the only thing that will work is organizing a month where the nation stops spending money and going to work.
Not even bothering to run the established investigation playbook when law enforcement kills a civilian is a major departure, and one worth noticing. But if all you do is go "same old same old", then you can safely lean back in your chair and do nothing as the problem worsens, while calling yourself so much smarter and more insightful than the people around you.
I agree that the "same at it ever was and always will be" attitude isn't great. It's defeatist and I choose not to live my life that way, even if it would be much easier mentally.
I think part of the reason I see this attitude so often is that, especially since 9/11, a large portion of the US population has decided that the police and military are infallible and should be trusted completely, so any large-scale attempt at reform runs into these unwavering supporters (and, in the case of the police, their unions).
- Overly broad qualified immunity
- The power of the police unions
- Lawsuit settlements coming out of public funds
- Collusion between prosecutors' and the police
These are all issues that need to be resolved to restore the sanity in policing.
At the federal level, the FBI needs to be reigned in...somehow. They all to often work outside the bounds of their defined role and powers. This isn't a new problem and one could argue it has been an issue since the beginning.
Whether they behave like civilized people or like thugs should be besides the point regardless of your political leaning in the matter of the system. Naturally from a basic human perspective civilized law enforcement is much more preferable than the alternative, but they aren’t your friends!
But the kind of white people we have here have never really had anything in common with those people so now that the Feds are coming after people of the sort of political persuasion they identify with for the first time since, the 1970s it "feels" like they're just now going after white people.
Now a lot of those same patriot right types are cheering this on if not enlisting.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170201130225/http://www.nytime...
Moreso in blue cities, I have no idea what point you're making there other than crime you've seen on TV is scary.
Yes, I hope future administrators go up and down the chain of command looking at everyone who was involved in the cover-up, and charges them with conspiracy to commit murder, but a future Democratic administration will at least identify and prosecute the murderers themselves. While Republican administrations will conceal the identity of the killers and continue to have them out on the streets
The question is, can the State of Minnesota put together enough evidence to convict these agents for murder and conspiracy to commit murder without the involvement of the federal government?
If so, we could see cases brought as early as this year.
If not, then the next question is can Democrats get them enough information by controlling one branch of the federal government. In that case, we could imagine a prosecution brought in 2027.
Otherwise, if we need Democrats to control the executive branch to get enough information it might be 2029.
I don’t think it will take long, because the State of Minnesota will have put the case together and be waiting to go. So the question will be how quickly can they get any necessary evidence, incorporate that into their case, and then bring charges.
They'd have to fight the feds for jurisdiction and will unfortunately likely lose that fight.
That’s simply not how the system works. There’s no one assigned entity with “jurisdiction” over a crime.
The state and federal governments are dual sovereigns and each are empowered to enforce their own laws. It doesn’t even violate double jeopardy for the Feds and a state to prosecute the same actions.
The only thing that matters is if the state can obtain enough evidence that they feel they could secure a conviction before a jury of the shooter’s peers.
The federal sovereign can usurp the state sovereign's courts jurisdiction and use jurisdiction removal[] to try the state charge in federal court. This is exactly what happened when Lon Horiuchi was charged by a state for killing (sniping) an innocent unarmed mother with a baby in her hands, and part of how he got off free.
Given the feds are always keen to do this when possible, it's not for nothing that they do it.
Yes, if the State of MN brings a criminal charge against a federal agent, the case will be removed from a State Court to a Federal Court.
But the MN prosecutor will be in the federal court prosecuting the case. The law that will apply to the case will still be MN state law.
It will be a federal judge, and federal court rules about procedure, but MN state law and MN state prosecutors.
Just parroting back what I've said then simply declaring I don't understand it (despite explicitly acknowledging the state charge would be tried in federal court) just looks terribly misguided when you lied with your smug quip "that's not how it works", when apparently you pretend as if you knew all along jurisdiction was relevant and would be fought over.
51 senators voted to confirm this unqualified moron to lead the top law enforcement agency.
Small town cops in third world countries are more professional than any of these ICE clowns, these mistakes happened because they keep hiring the lowest if the low, both in term of intelect and morality
They fucked it up from A to Z, stop licking the boot.
I'm sure the officers to whom this happened aren't happy either as this turned out, but I don't think they are the the only ones to blame.
Similar with the woman who was shot: should you be doing any police getaways or even driving towards any police officer?
legally. Also the gun he visibly did not reach for. And the very same gun that was carried out of the scene seconds before the first shot was fired.
> I don't think it's wise to interfere with police work
So what? If they were trained for anything other than escalation nothing would have happened, they're ""professional"" ""law enforcement officers"" from a federal agency, not a biker gang
> I'm sure the officers to whom this happened aren't happy either as this turned out
One of them literally claps his hands, it's on video, lmao, you can't make that shit up
> Similar with the woman who was shot: should you be doing any police getaways or even driving towards any police officer?
The one who got killed by a shot to the temple which basically proves the officer was completely out of the way at that time. The one where the officer then illegally fled the scene, packed up his house and then later pretended to be heavily injured and have "internal bleeding" despite being seen totally unharmed multiple times earlier.
What do you think of these sub 80iq ICE retards who just tried to break in the Ecuadorian consulate? Just doing their job I assume? Come on, keep on gargling these balls, idk if you expect to get a medal or something...
To me this looks like an unfortunate sequence of events rather than your judgement from the high horse of perfect information.
If you go to a protest, best leave your (legal) weapons at home, don't interfere nor resist law enforcement.
Also, if you want a better government, you should vote one in the office and not fuel these events after the fact.
You're arguing that an acceptable, albeit unfortunate, punishment for civil disobedience is state murder.
None of the videos show that at all, the victim's gun is safely brought away, clearly visible from multiple point of view
What's also clearly visible is that a masked gentleman from ICE get his gun out, instantly put his finger on the trigger and aim for the victim's back/head
> rather than your judgement from the high horse of perfect information.
Again, they're not a biker gang, they should be well trained and not shoot when someone yells "gun". Some seem to have been scared by their shots coming from their fellow brain dead colleagues.
> don't interfere nor resist law enforcement.
Yes, lick the boot and let the popo do whatever they want regardless of legality
Of course when all you do is gargle the popo's balls, follow orders, believe state propaganda and turn a blind eye when provided with video evidences the whole thing is a simple "unfortunate sequence of events", meanwhile in any other advanced societies it would be an instant scandal with severe repercussions on everyone involved
Overall, restricting police work but calling these protests, aren't a good strategy either. The presidential vote is over, the majority wants this. It's you who's subject to the losing side's propaganda.
Happens all the time in dozens of civilised countries without anyone getting magdumped.
> The presidential vote is over, the majority wants this.
Majority... of voters. He's at less than 40% approval right now. And even if, that's not how democracy works, elections aren't a 1 time card to do whatever the fuck you want for the next X years
> It's you who's subject to the losing side's propaganda.
I don't even live in that shit hole, I have no horses in the race, simply eyes to see. Only a rotten americanoid brain could see this and be like "oh well it's really unfortunate BUT ... he kinda deserved it you know, guns and shit"
As for approval ratings, I'm sure you know elections work: they happen periodically and the approval ratings don't have a direct effect on current events. Also, deporting illegals (what these protests are against) was on the campaign platform, so it's nowhere near "whatever the f. you want".
As you, I also have "eyes to see" which still makes the basis I'm coming from. And I'm also not American.
Two things can be true: the "resistance" rings in MN are behaving like the insurgents the US has fought for decades in the Middle East, and ICE agents wrongfully killed a man.
This is a horrifying and very unpariortic thing to say about people who are trying to prevent their daycares from being tear bombed, prevent masked thugs from beating detained law-abiding citizens before releasing them without charges, from masked thugs killing law-abiding people for exercising basic rights.
King George would have used that language. We sent him the Declaration of Independence, and the list of wrongs in that document is mostly relevant again today.
If you are framing this as insurgency, I place my bet on the strong people fighting bullets with mere whistles and cameras, as they are already coming out on top. If they ever resort to a fraction of the violence that the masked thugs are already using, they will not lose.
As a parent, you should know that believing this obviously false propaganda requires both 1) a weird and overly specific interest in daycares, and 2) not enough normal healthy exposure to kids to understand what daycares don't let weird freaks come inspect the children. Namely, repeating this obvious lie gives off pedo vibes, and I would never let you near my children after hearing you gobble up that propaganda uncritically and then even going so far as to spread it. Ick
From the MinnPost article:
Most child care centers are locked and have obscured doors or windows for children’s safety. Children are also kept in classrooms and would not likely be visible from a reception area. One of the day cares in the video told several news outlets that it did not grant Shirley entrance because he showed up with a handful of masked men, which raised suspicions that the men were agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. At least one of the centers was closed at the time Shirley arrived because it opens later in the day to serve the children of second-shift workers.
Is there a history of child care fraud in the state?
Yes, but it’s not as widespread as Shirley claims.
If anything, I'd be suspicious of (and not send my child to) any daycare that _didn't_ have those security features.
The tactics being used are:
* whistles * recording with phones * free speech * communication with neighbors * sharing with neighbors, ala potlucks * training each other on legal means of resistance * caring for people kicked out of detention centers in the dead of winter without their coats or phones * bringing meals to families that are afraid to leave the house, since the political persecution is largely a function of skin color, as numerous police chiefs have attested when recounting what ICE/CBP does to their officers when off duty.
Calling this "insurgent tactics" instead of neighbors being neighbors is most definitely a perverse and disgusting values assessment. When the hell have insurgents used the whistle and the phone camera as their "tactics"?!
Saying that this lawful activity, all 100% lawful, somehow "impedes federal enforcement of laws" is actually a statement that the supposed enforcement is being conducted in a completely lawless, unconstitutional, and dangerous manner.
Keep on talking like you are, because people right now are sniffing out who is their neighbor and who will betray them when ICE moves on to the next city. Your neighbors probably already know, but being able to share specific sentences like "insurgent tactics" and how cameras are somehow "impeding" masked men abducting people, when days later we don't even know the identity of officers that shot and killed a man on film, who was in no way impeding law enforcement. And the only people who talk about "impeding law enforcement" also lie profusely when there is direct evidence on film contradicting their lies.
There is terrorism going on, there is lawlessness, there is a great deal of elevated crime in Minnesota, but it all the doing of masked ICE/CBP agents that face zero accountability for breaking our laws and violating our most sacred rights.
This just reads as "I don't know whether you're on Other Team.. but, I'll assume you are, here goes:"
Crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor and overstaying your visa is a civil violation and not even a crime. Yet somehow those are the only ones he's targeting. Those, and actual lawful immigrants that say things that he doesn't like.
I love this example because it demonstrates like 5 different levels of ignorance about American politics and foreign relations, plus a good helping of propaganda.
It doesn't change the organization and tactics used to identify targets are the same methods and strategies used by insurgent groups to select targets and attack. AQI was very sophisticated for the technology they had. Their warriors were brave, cunning, and true believers with efficacious systems for what was available to them.
Twenty years of that, plus the rest of the middle east has now made it particularity common knowledge how to run insurgency cells worldwide. This combined with American expertise brought back and with people legally aiding these groups in setting up their C2 structures with what is effective and what works is no surprise.
This investigation should be no surprise to anyone. They use these techniques because they work. They are so effective at target acquisition, monitoring, and selective engagement that if they flipped from their current tactics to more violent ones it would be a large casualty event.
The structure of your message implies you are not American. DHS posts the people they deport here:
It's really hard to go down that list and say "yeah i'd rather have these people here than have ICE deporting people".
Not "brown looking" native americans or "foreign looking" US citizens that have been incorrectly identified and dragged without warrents from their homes and families barely dressed into the snow?
It's well past time whatever is left of DOGE got to working culling the over reach of the rest of the current ICE / DHS system.
It's the opposition to the current presidency who is trying to spin it their own way. They want it to get out of hand, that there are masses on the streets, whistling to police doing their work, to create more of such situations, so they could blame the government even more.
This isn't a bunch of people organically protesting, this is an organized system designed to "target" ICE agents. The only difference is the payload delivery between physical disruption vs weapon based attacks.
We have chats, organized territory and labor specialization in a company I work for, too. It doesn't say anything by itself. It's just describing a means of human cooperation. Goal is to write software. You can have organized protest movement too. Unless the goal is to overthrow governing authority, or whatnot, it's not insurgency.
pardon my ignorance, but why would that be up to your President?
Anyone who ran convoys in the Middle East, patrolled, or did intel around it will know this playbook. The resistance is impressive because it's taken lessons learned from observing the US Military overseas dealing with insurgencies.
0 - https://www.usainscom.army.mil/iSALUTE/iSALUTEFORM/ 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHIPEVj0pRo
During the Obama administration, state and local LEO worked with ICE to deport. Now they are directed not to. Without that protection and cooperation from local officers, it becomes significantly harder and more dangerous to execute these operations. So they put masks on because the local agitators are doxxing them, threatening their families, and making life unsafe for the agents.
So now we have this lack of cooperation from local government that creates unsafe and dangerous operating conditions for ICE. What are they supposed to do? Not enforce the law because the local government says no? We already fought a war about Federal power versus state power. Heck, Obama (whom i voted for 2x) sued Arizona (Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387) over supremacy of the Federal Government with respect to immigration.
There would be no problems if Minneapolis and Minnesota leadership reacted the way other cities like Memphis did. Instead they've explicitly, or tacitly, endorsed this escalating resistance movement. I can't imagine ever putting my hands on a LEO and expecting it to go well, yet they do it freely. Officers are only human, and day-in day-out of this, combined with very real actionable threats against your life, and family life are only going to create more tensions and more mistakes.
This is no invasion hostile force, this is a chosen focal point to challenge the will and ability of this administration to enforce the democratically made laws.
The FBI has a long history of attempting to infiltrate and destabilize these groups. In the early 2010s there was a push to infiltrate right leaning groups. They especially called out in their published documents disgruntled veterans returning from the wars and unhappy with leadership noting a worry they would use the skills picked up at war at home.
It's absolutely no surprise that the FBI would investigate this behavior.
You don't. You could even order sim cards off ebay/amazon if you wanted to, which definitely doesn't have any KYC.
Source?
>As for the nine digit zip, I don't think they validate it.
Why collect it then? Imagine having a service promising "lets people use phones without revealing identity" but for whatever reason asks for a bunch of info, then brushes it aside with "yeah but you can fill in fake information so it's fine".
>Your anti-privacy agenda is crystal clear.
Your inability to take any criticism without resorting to personal attacks is crystal clear.
"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect"
Like searching a vehicle database? That's available to all sorts of people, like auto body repair shops.
Taking a photo of a license plate? Nothing illegal about that.
Taking a photo is legal. Running plates through law-enforcement/ALPR systems is not, and auto body shops don't have that access.
Real-time identification != observation - it implies unauthorized data access.
In fact the first clue that they look for is having Illinois Permanent plates because that is a strong indicator that they are using rental vehicles. That doesn't take a database, it's just a strong signal that can be confirmed by other evidence.
I think the choice of the verb "scanning" indicated it clearly enough.
Were they doing that? I haven't read the article, that's why I'm asking.
Also, what is the outrage about? This administration has deported the least number of people compared to all previous administrations. Obama deported 3.1 million people, ten times more than Trump today. Same ICE, same border patrol.
2. Their death is the outcome of the outrage.
You don't have to agree with the criticisms but to not even be able to understand why people are upset stretches believability.
And 'different tactics' doesn’t explain the reaction gap, as i said, under Obama there were 3.1M+ deportations and at least 56 documented deaths in ICE custody (https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/re...) with nowhere near this level of outrage. What changed is media framing and amplification, not the existence of harsh enforcement.
> And 'different tactics' doesn’t explain the reaction gap, as i said, under Obama there were 3.1M+ deportations and at least 56 documented deaths in ICE custody
You continuously ask this same question, get an answer, and ignore it. ICE enforcement was not the same under Obama and Trump even if Obama had high deportation numbers. The deaths in that report were from medical issues or neglect. Horrible, absolutely, but not shootings, not American citizens, and not protesters.
Maybe instead of assuming everyone is a stooge that can only do what the media tells them, consider they may actually have some legitimate grievances?
18 U.S.C. § 1505 - Obstruction of Federal Officers (this includes ICE itself - obstructing or interfering with an ICE arrest is a crime)
18 U.S.C. § 118 - Obstructing, resisting, or interfering with federal protective functions
Those other two laws seem like an even weirder fit for the fact pattern in this subthread.
If "ICE vehicle has been identified, everybody go there" is followed by mobbing vehicles, blocking movement, inducing agents to disengage, or warning targets to evade arrest, that crosses from protected speech into actionable conduct.
See Brandenburg v. Ohio (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/492)
Frankly I don’t think it should have to come to license plate numbers. In a free society law enforcement should clearly identify themselves as such. We should not need secret police.
> Frankly I don’t think it should have to come to license plate numbers. In a free society law enforcement should clearly identify themselves as such. We should not need secret police.
None of that matters _today_, because _today_ the law is different.
For example, a lot of people thought it was wrong that federal agents could cover their faces. Sacramento agreed. Now there is a law preventing it.
A wide array of policy issues related to the targeting and manner of execution of Trump’s mass deportation program, not the number of deportations.
Also, a number of specific instances of violence by the federal government during what is (at least notionally) the execution of immigration enforcement.
> why are they only upset in one city?
People are very clearly not “only upset in one city”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_mass_deportat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ren%C3%A9e_Good_protes...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/24/protests-ale...
There was significant criticism of them, but both the policy and the manner of execution were different, a fact which Trump presaged in BOTH of his successful campaigns, explicitly stating plans for a different manner of execution (in the 2024 campaign explicitly referencing the notorious 1950s “Operation Wetback” as a model), and which Trump officials have crowed about throughout the execution of the campaign. Pretending the differences that provoke different responses don’t exists when their architects have been as proud of them as critics have been angry at them is just some intense bad faith denial of facts.
The core issue is the media. I worked at a large news company in New York during the Obama’s term. There was a training for our reporters: anything negative about Obama was strictly prohibited. Ad revenue.
And there's a lot of truth to that which a lot of people need to reconcile with.
The fact that we don't have DACA solidified into a path towards citizenship by now is just sad.
During Obama's term the leaders of DHS / ICE were not blatently lying about events captured on film and evading legitmate investigations into deaths at the hands of officers.
During Obamas term people with no criminal record were not being offshored to hell-hole prison camps with serious abuses of human rights.
From your linked article:
If the abuses were this bad under Obama when the Border Patrol described itself as constrained, imagine how it must be now under Trump, who vowed to unleash the agents to do their jobs.
I am unable to assist further with your stated struggle for comprehension.
You're right that things are significantly worse now, but it's important to recognize that what came before was still bad and in many ways is the foundation for where we are.
https://slate.com/business/2013/11/double-down-obama-said-he...
With the preamble that I'm not a US citizen, have never thought to apply to be one, have been in and out of the US and many other countries a number of times, and don't play favourites with POTUS(n) on the basis of their asserted party ticket; ...
The upstream question and context here concerns differences between administrations wrt home soil immigration policy, to which I've been focused.
As points of note:
* Allegations of POTUS(X) boasting behind doors are a difference of behaviour from that of POTUS(Y) coming right out and stating they can freely kill in Times Square and get away with while glorifying the deaths of citizens in public and promising perpertrators they'll get away with it and have immunity.
* I'm no fan of remote double tap kills. Full stop. That said;
* POTUS(X) authorising kills in an "inherited" known and ongoing "war zone" known to all is distinct from POTUS(Y) authorising double tap kills from unmarked airframes of civilians in international waters prior to any declaration of war (via Congress or not).
* Regardless, the offshore behaviour of any POTUS is distinct from their behaviour toward their own citizens within their country.
In the arc of all the shitty behaviour by post WW POTUS(n) candidates, the current incumbent has significantly levelled up to achieve Kissinger level disregard for human life on home soil for purely political gain .. and played that hand badly.
That aside, I'm not a Communist - but I do admire Ash Sarkar's shut down of idiotic Obama / Trump faux dichotomy posings by a pompous right wing media pundit - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JD7Ol0gz11k
I equally admire our PM's "off the cuff" (approximately 15 mins rough note prep time) strip down of an opposition one time PM attempting to pin a third parties bad behaviour on the sitting government on the basis of them making no comment until after a Court case had completed (as per the law here) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCNuPcf8L00
It's not relevant to immigration policy, but it is a good example of off the cuff professional level political debate in sitting government.
> > The fascists won. That’s why?
> No, they haven’t.
Yes, they did, that’s why they are able to use the executive branch of the federal government to enforce their wishes at the moment, with virtually no constraint yet from the legislative branch, and no significant consequences yet for ignoring contrary orders from the judicial branch.
They may lose at some point in the future, but something that might happen in the future is irrelevant to the question of why what is happening now is happening, and it is happening because they won. Unambiguously.
The fascists haven't won because if they did, they would be killing a lot more dissidents in the street. They killed two and the public outcry is so angry that Kristi Noem might be impeached. Democrats are willing to shut down the government to starve ICE if they have to. Even GOP legislators are criticizing Trump, which is a dangerous activity for any Republican looking to keep their seat.
I'm not seeing a whole lot of meaningful checks.
Bovino (Border Patrol “at large” Commander who may or may not have lost that title and been returned to his sector command), not Bongino (the podcaster-turned-FBI Deputy Director who resigned to go back to podcasting), and Homan didn't get Bovino’s job, only his spotlight (he was already the head of border policy for the White House.)
Elected branches. Subject to further contests in months. That’s now how fascists endgame.
It’s stupid and wrong to claim fascists have won in America. The only people peddling this lie are fascists who can read polls.
I hope the midterms go smoothly and the GOP loses heavily at the polls and legislative power changes hands in January, but I'm not 100% confident of that any more.
I don't think it makes sense to reject an explanation of current events grounded in a battle that is clearly over having been won and the victor using the ground they’ve gained to produce the events being discussed merelt because the broader war isn’t over and that victor may potentially lose some subsequent battle.
I think the dissent is about the latter. It's not over yet, so people should not give up.
The root comment clearly has ambiguity that people take both ways.
flagged
if you want the fascists to un-win, you need to treat the world as it is: the fascists are ascendent.
Are you pro or against this?
Freedom of expression does not include freedom from prosecution for real crimes.
What do you have against crime?
Nonviolent political action is often criminalized.
Yes, but physical impediments are physical impediments. The protesters have been repeatedly seen to impede, or attempt to impede, ICE physically.
We also know that legal observation and making noise does not constitute interference.
So those may be their stated reasons, but they will not hold up in court.
18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal officer
The explicit coordination of things like: vehicle blocking, personnel blocking, personnel removal, disruptive distraction could clearly qualify.
How the courts choose to interpret & prosecute is up to them.
That is who is alleged to be impeded.
Interpreting masked officers in tactical gear as kidnappers, or claiming that a patch saying “ICE” is insufficient identification, is not a legally valid basis for suspicion or resistance.
Sure, most of the people kidnapping people off the streets and incarcerating or deporting them without due process in violation of the constitution are federal officers. But unless they identify themselves clearly, you’d be stupid to not resist.
Publishing locations alone is not conspiracy to commit a crime. If ICE is impeded as a result of this information, that’s not enough. Conspiracy requires the government to prove that multiple people intended to impede them.
That the law is written in a way that an individual rate-payer may believe they understand its application is irrelevant to the way it actually is. "The Law" is not necessarily the written corpus of enumerated regulations, but also the judicary's day-to-day interpretation of the written text, tempered by exhortations from (hopefully) decent legal minds arguing before the court. That's the theory, anyway.
Remember when words, at least usually, meant things?