ICE

[Polds4OSU]

An online rumor claims authorities with ICE, the FBI and the DEA arrested more than 5,000 cartel members as part of a Minneapolis campaign named Operation Iron North. That never happened.

Here's how we debunked the claim: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/operation-iron-north-minneapolis/

 

[RxCowboy]

In congressional testimony yesterday Collins said that was a local decision. I dont recall the congressman but they responded soething like, "So, a local leader just woke up and decided not to let their people go to a memorial service for a fallen colleague? Ok."

Cya

 

[steross]

I thought my response was measured.

Oh, lordy, Rob… you really need to think about what you’re saying before you say it.

Two words: Rosa Parks

Good lord…

 

[Polds4OSU]

Gov. Walz: I know why Trump called. He needed something from us. Not because it was a horrific violation of human rights, the potential murder of Minnesotans, an assault on our state that is unprecedented in American history. The reason he was calling was his poll numbers dropped and it looked bad on TV.

FactPost (@factpostnews) on Threads

Gov. Walz: I know why Trump called. He needed something from us. Not because it was a horrific violation of human rights, the potential murder of Minnesotans, an assault on our state that is unprecedented in American history. The reason he was calling was his poll numbers dropped and it looked...

www.threads.com

 

[RxCowboy]

The first one was telling him that his statement could be construed to mean that he was against civil disobedience such as Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, which is pretty much the same thing that JD said. The second comment was a general comment not directed at anyone in particular, but frustration after reading three pages of junk this morning. Maybe I should have kept it to myself.

 

[Polds4OSU]

Alligator Alcatraz accused of punishing detainees seeking legal help​

link

MSN

 

[Polds4OSU]

 

[HacklemanPoke]

To me the interesting discussion here and why I asked @Rob B the original question is that it seems to be a position we agree

1) What ICE was doing in Minnesota is not a good thing.

2) Detaining undocumented immigrants w violent criminal charges or convictions in accordance with US law is a good thing.

3) Assaulting federal agents & destruction of property is a bad thing.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The reversal of policy, firing of bad federal actors, the drawdown of “agency troops” what Rob has called a good start (and I think most of us agree w him) is a result of the protests we are seeing. If the singular protest was the 20,000 person march in freezing weather we don’t see the change in regime policy or tactics.

I’m not advocating that murder is an acceptable result for the change. But without the whistles, and mega phones and horns and standing in front of law enforcement we don’t get to today’s “good start.”

 

[Rob B.]

I am asking this sincerely and honestly….

1. @Rob B. :when you were talking about not agreeing with “breaking the law” when protesting…..did you POSSIBLY mean something more akin to using violence to break the law?

Or

2. Were you saying that you do not support the breaking of ANY laws at all as a means of protest…..peacefully or otherwise.

If you meant the former, I and I think most others could buy that.

If you, however, meant the latter, we’re gonna fundamentally disagree. Peaceful resistance to and violation of the law with a willingness to accept the consequences thereof is a fundamental precept of civil disobedience.

I’m asking this very pointed question because I don’t want to twist your words, but you sometimes don’t clearly and accurately make your position clear.

If you meant #1…all good. (And maybe everybody else misinterpreted your meaning)

If you meant #2….IMO, you’re on the wrong side of history, and everybody else interpreted your meaning clearly and aren’t twisting your words in any way.

This absolutely isn’t a gotcha type question. I’m not cross-examining you or accusing you of anything. I’m seeking clarity and understanding. Take advantage of it or not. It’s completely up to you.

I absolutely meant #1 and not #2. Thank you kindly for asking for clarification.

As in Pretti incident #1 where he clearly resorted to violence and not Pretti #2 where he clearly did not.

 

[CowboyJD]

Federal court rules Noem terminating temporary protected status for Venezuelans in US was illegal​

link

MSN

Fat lot of good it does if they’ve already been deported.

 

[GratefulPoke]

https://bsky.app/profile/thetnholler.bsky.social%2Fpost%2F3mdkxdazebk2s

 

[CowboyJD]

The first one was telling him that his statement could be construed to mean that he was against civil disobedience such as Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, which is pretty much the same thing that JD said. The second comment was a general comment not directed at anyone in particular, but frustration after reading three pages of junk this morning. Maybe I should have kept it to myself.

I would say the first construed his statement as him being against civil disobedience.

It certainly wasn’t asking for clarification.

So, no, it wasn’t pretty much the same thing that I said…..in form or substance.

 

[CowboyJD]

I absolutely meant #1 and not #2. Thank you kindly for asking for clarification.

As in Pretti incident #1 where he clearly resorted to violence and not Pretti #2 where he clearly did not.

Thank you for clarifying.

We continue to disagree on whether property damage to a vehicle by kicking it as it drives away clearly qualifies as “resorting to violence”, but that’s something reasonable minds can easily disagree on.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Thank you for clarifying.

We continue to disagree on whether property damage to a vehicle by kicking it as it drives away clearly qualifies as “resorting to violence”, but that’s something reasonable minds can easily disagree on.

Legally, attempted property damage is not violence, correct?

 

[Rob B.]

Legally, attempted property damage is not violence, correct?

Legally or not, if I get mad and kick the taillight out of my or someone else's vehicle, I'm being violent. Intentionally so.

 

[cowboyinexile]

Legally or not, if I get mad and kick the taillight out of my or someone else's vehicle, I'm being violent. Intentionally so.

Why wasn't he arrested when it happened?

 

[Rob B.]

Why wasn't he arrested when it happened?

That was my question. It looked to me like they tackled him, then let him go. Had that been a local law enforcement vehicle I tend to believe he'd have been cuffed and stuffed.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Legally or not, if I get mad and kick the taillight out of my or someone else's vehicle, I'm being violent. Intentionally so.

What if someone throws your tea in the harbor? Would that be considered violent?

Property damage and violence are different things. Not all property damage is equal either, IMO.

 

[GratefulPoke]

Why wasn't he arrested when it happened?

Even with the people they have "arrested" most of the time they rough people up/beat the sh!t out of them, detain them, hold them for 8 hours, try to intimidate them in custody or get them to out immigrants/organizers and then let them go. Actual charges are pretty rare from what I have read.

They broke the guys rib and called it a day on the first interaction and then upped the ante the 2nd time.

 

[Rob B.]

What if someone throws your tea in the harbor? Would that be considered violent?

Property damage and violence are different things. Not all property damage is equal either, IMO.

Let's ask @CowboyJD
If a citizen spits at or on one of your police officers, then kicks the taillight out of the department vehicle that they're driving and is arrested, do you opt in or out of prosecuting them for it?