Comment by timr

Comment by timr 2 days ago

31 replies

> I'm upset because a US citizen was arrested for asking a reasonable question to some government officials before complying with the government officials.

Some basic facts are true here:

a) Brad Lander had no official capacity in that situation.

b) As a random person, he had no right to demand to see any documents, whatsoever, from the people doing the arrest.

c) Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police.

You don't just get to throw yourself in the middle of a law-enforcement action without consequence because you're a politician (or upset, or "moral", or...)

---

Edit: folks, read the article and watch the video [1]. A lot of you are just repeating things that plainly aren't true. Lander was in a federal courthouse. Uniformed police officers were present, and participated in his arrest. He had just attended the trial of the person being detained. There's simply no reasonable way that Lander believed that this was a "kidnapping", as many of you are saying. He knew exactly what was going on, and he knew exactly what he was doing. And the fact that cameras were there certainly wasn't a coincidence.

[1] https://www.amny.com/news/brad-lander-arrested-ice-court-hea...

PaulDavisThe1st 2 days ago

This "let them do it, and try to rectify wrongs later" model is why we end up with innocent gay hairdressers in CECOT.

There are clearly established procedures for US law enforcement (which includes ICE). If they are not following those procedures, then any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity".

Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes.

The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally.

  • anon291 2 days ago

    > any citizen has the right to raise this as an issue, politician or not. They don't get to just haul people away because you have no "official capacity".

    Yes, you do have a right to raise this as an issue... but not anywhere anyway. In all this discussion about the rule of law, we forget that the rule of the law also dictates how citizen redresses are to be handled... in a court of law, using established procedures.

    > The 2nd amendment crowd are strong on the idea of guns as a means of resisting tyranny. Other people feel similarly about standing up to law enforcement being done illegally.

    False equivocation... The 2nd amendment crowd has an amendment to our constitution allowing them to do what they do: own weapons. There is no amendment that lets you willy-nilly march into a court and demand papers. If you want that, I would suggest writing your legislator to propose such an amendment.

    • PaulDavisThe1st 2 days ago

      1. I suggest you check the meaning of equivocation. I think you meant equivalence.

      2. I did not equate the two, other than as a means of resisting tyranny. You have no legal right (other than in NH) to seek to overthrow the government, 2nd amendment or otherwise.

      • NemoNobody 2 days ago

        What does legal have to do with anything?

        If someone is trying to overthrow the government - they will be Patriots if they win.

        Legal doesn't matter at all if someone is at that point

    • bokoharambe 2 days ago

      It's hilarious to see people talking about rule of law when the President of the United States himself is not bound by it. The President! You can see it very clearly why interwar liberalism failed. As Schmitt points out, they were too caught up in constitutional handwringing to comprehend that they had entered a state of exception, and that normal laws and procedures were not to be followed.

  • timr 2 days ago

    > Do you have a legal right to see the documents that MUST be presented to the person they are seeking to detain? Probably not. Do you have a moral duty to insist the US law enforcement HAS that document before leaving the situation? Many people would say yes.

    Well, you can theorize a "moral duty" to do whatever you want, but that won't stop you from getting actually arrested, under real laws. But you do you.

    The thing about being a martyr for your beliefs is that it comes with a downside. This article is trying to stir up controversy that someone doing something illegal (i.e. obstruction) was arrested for a valid reason.

    • PaulDavisThe1st 2 days ago

      Getting arrested for complaining about illegal law enforcement action that is taking place is the sort of downside that history will write as heroic.

TheCoelacanth a day ago

All he did was link arms with another person. Everyone has the right to link arms with another person.

If law enforcement wants him to stop doing that, it is perfectly reasonable to expect them to prove that they actually have the authority to do so.

pyuser583 2 days ago

> Even if he thought the detention was illegal, and the police were completely fake -- and let's be real, he didn't think that -- the right way to handle it would be to call the police.

Very, very good point. Not enough people know they can call the police on police.

kevingadd 2 days ago

If a bunch of armed thugs who aren't wearing uniforms or badges show up and abduct someone, citizens don't have the right or obligation to do something about it? Just stand back and watch? That's the world you want to live in, one where kidnappings are normal?

  • ensignavenger 2 days ago

    They were wearing uniforms, I watched the video. Badges were not clearly visible in the video, but they certainly had uniforms.

    • snypher 2 days ago

      https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/nyregion/brad-lander-immi...

      No-one in the banner image of this article has a uniform? Is it too much to ask to be uniformed while acting in this capacity? There doesn't seem to be a need for subterfuge, they just don't want the bad optics.

      • ensignavenger 2 days ago

        Oh look, the NYT got a picture to spin their yarn! Maybe watch the NYTs own video clip just below it?

    • disattention 2 days ago

      Anyone can literally just buy/make a uniform. Especially concerning if badges aren't visible. This argument doesn't hold much water imo.

      • ensignavenger 2 days ago

        Perhaps, but the comment I was replying to was claiming "not wearing uniforms" which isn't what was going on. I have no idea if badges were displayed at any point, but this was a federal courthouse, one would hope that they would be asking for identification. It should also be noted that according to the article, NYPD was present at the time.

        I don't think, given the facts I currently have, that claiming he didn't know they were real ICE agents is going to hold much water.

        • FireBeyond a day ago

          > It should also be noted that according to the article, NYPD was present at the time.

          Two NYPD officers were present, Landers' security detail. They weren't there to effect or assist with the arrest.

  • timr 2 days ago

    > If a bunch of armed thugs who aren't wearing uniforms or badges show up and abduct someone citizens don't have the right or obligation to do something about it?

    Sure you do. Call the police. Record it, capture the details for evidence.

    > Just stand back and watch?

    Again, you're welcome to call the police. But no, you don't just get to rush in and start interfering because your sophisticated understanding of the circumstances as a complete nobody make you feel like Captain America.

    > That's the world you want to live in, one where kidnappings are normal?

    It's obviously not a "kidnapping". Nobody seriously believes that -- most obviously, Brad Lander, who wouldn't be screaming for a warrant from "kidnappers".

    • kevinh 2 days ago

      A few days ago someone shot people while pretending to be a police officer. Someone impersonating ICE for kidnapping isn't out of the realm of possibility.

      • timr 2 days ago

        Right. So your logic is: because someone, somewhere, once did something illegal while dressed as a police officer, we should interfere with every arrest, everywhere, because they might be fake police?

        Or are you just restricting this logic to plainclothes officers, who aren't wearing uniforms at all?

      • apparent 2 days ago

        Yes, and a few days ago some "peacekeepers" in UT tried to shoot someone whom they perceived to be a threat, and ended up shooting and killing a bystander nearby. Situations are complicated, and assuming you know what's going on, and that you can help, is presumptuous.

        • acdha 2 days ago

          That argument works better against the position: things which create confusion increase the odds of serious problems. Reducing uncertainty by having clear rules makes it safer for everyone: that “good guy with a gun” is far more likely to be involved in a tragic mistake not because they have any desire to be but because it’s a snap judgement with limited information and bystanders. Armed paramilitaries abducting people in a manner indistinguishable from a cartel kidnapping or police impersonation is dramatically increasing the risk to those officers snd everyone nearby for the same reason, and they’re not doing anything they couldn’t do without following the law with identification, serving legal warrants, etc.

      • anon291 2 days ago

        And a few days ago, some guy crossed a border with a young girl he passed off as his daughter when in reality he was a sex trafficker and going to sell the girl into sex slavery.

        Since we're all clutching our pearls, we might as well clutch all of them.