Comment by themafia
Comment by themafia 5 days ago
It would help if they stopped holding demonstrations in front of facilities with huge amounts of facial recognition technology.
Protesting is not something you should do "casually."
Comment by themafia 5 days ago
It would help if they stopped holding demonstrations in front of facilities with huge amounts of facial recognition technology.
Protesting is not something you should do "casually."
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
…
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
…
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.
- Some insurrectionists
>What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.
I disagree. If the feds, or any law enforcement, wants to enforce law that is so unpopular that people feel compelled to make it hard in this way then, IDK, sucks for them. Go beg for more budget.
And I feel this way about a whole ton of categories of law, not just The Current Thing (TM).
A huge reason that law and government in this country is so f-ed up is that people, states, municipalities and big corporations in particular, just roll over and take it because that keeps the $$ flowing. A solid majority of the stuff the feds force upon the nation in the form of "do X, get a big enough tax break you can't compete without it" or "enforce Y if you want your government to qualify for fed $$" would not be support and could not be enforced if it had to be done so overtly, with enforcers paid to enforce it, rather than backhandedly by quasi deputizing other entities in exchange for $$.
> However, the situation has also been significantly escalated by often-violent obstructionists
Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)
If it is the latter, then isn't the blame to be placed squarely on the original enforcement philosophy?
Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.
> Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)
Yes, I think there would've been massive protests against the US federal government doing anything at all to be effective at deporting illegal immigrants. Significant numbers of ideologically-dedicated people think that not allowing foreigners to immigrate to the US or deporting foreigners who have illegally immigrated is an immoral, Nazi-equivalent policy that they have a moral obligation to disrupt. The masks and other shows of force from federal immigration enforcement are a reaction to the protests designed to keep individual ICE agents safe and effective; and to demonstrate to illegal immigrants that the federal government is serious about deporting them, violently if necessary, in order to try to incentivize them to leave voluntarily.
> Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.
We're not talking about an interpersonal relationship, we're talking about mass political actions and the authority of national-scale governments.
Factually incorrect.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-immigration-approval...
> Just 39% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing on immigration, down from 41% earlier this month, while 53% disapprove, the poll found.
Martin Luther King said while all should aim to follow the law and obey, if a law is unjust then one should break it proudly and in the open.
Militarized police with general warrants going door to door, going into schools, hospitals, places of worship to detain the dehumanized untermensch is legal.
People loudly protesting and sabotaging these efforts via their first amendment is a far more moral and honorable stance, despite being illegal in a round-about way.
It's quite literally a protest against state violence via non-violent means.
> Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity.
I am unwilling to risk protesting against this administration given the combination of facial scanning, IMSI catchers, ALPRs, and surveillance cameras in general. I cannot think of a way to stay truly anonymous when protesting, with enough access and time, you could be tracked back to your home even if you leave your phone at home and take public transportation. I believe the aforementioned technology chills free speech in combination with the current administration.
I’m not particularly worried about protesters being targeted by this administration, I worry about future administrations that could be far worse.
> Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually
Then you are going to be identified and your conversations monitored. This is precisely the outcome the article is complaining about. I find that expectation absurd.
> of a self-governing people
This describes the majority not the individual.
> and petition the government
There is no expectation or statement that your anonymity will be protected. The entire idea of a "petition" immediately defies this.
> to prevent the enforcement of law.
How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.
> How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.
Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.
Law enforcement only works when the people have trust in those doing the enforcement.
ICE have lost the trust of a significant portion of the people in Minnesota because they are using unreasonable force, eroding constitutionally protected rights and behaving with impunity.
They are, in reality, just conducting a politically motivated campaign of harassment. If they truly wanted to deport as many people as possible they'd start with border states like Florida and Texas, places with 20x more undocumented immigrants.
> It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.
I expect the vast majority of government abuses in recent history the world over have to at least some degree followed the law according to those carrying out the acts. Thus it is almost to be expected that as a situation escalates those crying foul might occasionally find themselves opposing the rule of law as described by those in power.
To state it plainly, not all "rule of law" is subjectively equal.
> Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them.
Seems completely reasonable given ICE is murdering, arresting, and deporting citizens and legal residents.
The government wronging 1 person to rightfully enforce the law on 10 is unacceptable.
IANAL but I don't think it's so cut and dried that creating a crowdsourced map of publicly visible ice operations is illegal. Yes such a map could be used by illegal immigrants to avoid detention. It could also be used by law abiding citizens that want to avoid the hubbub these operations cause or by legal us citizens that don't wanna be targeted just for being in the neighborhood. It seems like a decent lawyer could make a case that publishing the location of an ice operation is not the same as acting with intent to interfere with the operation.
Which law makes it illegal to track ICE? If there isn't a law against it, but you think the government should arrest people for it anyway, then you don't support rule of law.
>Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.
By your logic, combined with the actions of the ICE folks in Minneapolis, anyone who submits the location of a DUI checkpoint into Waze[0] should be summarily executed?
Is that your argument? ICE has murdered people for documenting their locations and actions which, by your statement was to allow others to "dodge" law enforcement.
Documenting a DUI checkpoint does exactly the same thing. So. If your position is that law "enforcement" is allowed to summarily shoot to death folks who document their actions and locations in one context, then they should be allowed to do so in other, more serious contexts like DUI checkpoints.
Is that your claim? If not, please do provide some nuance around what you said, because that's how I understood your statements.
Nonsense.
ICE are engaging in violence, warrantless forced entry to homes, at least two shootings that border on murder, they even tried to force entry into an Ecuadorian embassy.
They are detaining citizens at random, relocating them physically and in some cases releasing them; if they don't die in detention due to lack of access to medical care.
If you cannot see how these activities should be observed, documented, protested whilst still standing for professed Amercian values...
Edit: Ah excellent, downvotes without reply because facts are... uncomfortable!
Here's the sources:
https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/ice-agents-blocked-from-... - Ecuadorian consulate.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-u-s-citizen-says-ice-f... - warrantless entry
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-... - many, many US citizens detained only for charges to vanish at the merest scrutiny
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/27/five-year-ol... - deporting citizens
https://newrepublic.com/post/205458/ice-detainees-pay-for-me... - cutting off medical care
https://abcnews.go.com/US/detainees-heard-cuban-man-slammed-... - deaths in custody
Protesting is a fundamental human right and obligation. It is something that you should do as casually as you would voting, volunteering, and taking out the garbage: something you do from time to time when the moment demands it.
See also: https://enwp.org/Chilling_effect
> Protesting is a fundamental human right
That doesn't include vandalism, it doesn't include blocking roads, looting, or assaulting people. What's obvious to me is that a certain class of protestors are intentionally provoking a response from the government by breaking the law. Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed, and that is used as an excuse for more protests. The protests get increasingly violent in an escalating cycle.
That process isn't exercising a "fundamental human right", it's a form of violence. If you don't agree with the Government the correct answer is to vote, have a dialog, and if you choose to protest do it in a way that's respectful to your neighbors and the people around you.
> a certain class of protestors
Yes, a proportionally large and significant number of local Minnesota community members of long and good standing.
> are intentionally provoking a response from the government
are reacting to excessive over reach by outsiders, directed by the Federal government to act in a punative manner.
> Inevitably someone is arrested, hurt, or killed,
This has already happened. Multiple times. As was obvious from the outset given the unprofessional behaviour and attitudes of the not-police sent in wearing masks.
> [the people aren't] exercising a "fundamental human right"
they are exercising their Constitutional rights. Including their right to free speech, to bear arms, to protest the Federal government, etc.
> the correct answer is to vote, talk to your neighbors and friends, and peaceably protest,
Which they have done and they continue to do.
See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/01/the-neighbors-defe...
for more about the local community of neighbour loving US citizens acting in defence of their community.
The main thing I see these protesters doing wrong is that they seem to freak out and fight back once they get aarrested. This is not how to deal with under-trained law enforcement unless you want to die. Get arrested, get booked, have your friends pay your bail, and then have a media circus around the court cases that result. This seems lame and takes some self-control to do, but it works really well.
Instead, people are getting killed and videos are coming out that seem very chaotic, where people with different predispositions than you can empathize with the police. If those videos were people getting arrested and pepper sprayed for speaking out and for helping each other, they would hit a lot harder for a much larger population.
> That doesn't include vandalism, it doesn't include blocking roads, looting, or assaulting people. What's obvious to me is that a certain class of protestors are intentionally provoking a response from the government by breaking the law.
If protestors are doing this sort of thing to ICE agents, then ICE has probable cause to arrest them while they’re doing it. I don’t support people interfering or obstructing ICE, but standing 20 feet away and filming or blowing a whistle is not obstruction.
What I’ve seen is ICE agents losing their shit and shoving people because they can’t emotionally handle being observed and yelled at, both of which are legal. I would not be able to handle that either, I’d lose my shit too, but I’m not an ICE agent.
I’m sure there are protestors crossing the line too, they arrested a bunch of people for breaking windows at a hotel the other night. I just don’t see the need to add conspiracy charges if they can just directly charge them with obstruction when it happens.
Yeah, this is what I don't get. People have the right to peacefully protest (and they should). However, once you actively get in the way of official federal policing business, you are no longer a peaceful protester. Interjecting yourself into already stressful situation will only make things worse for you.
> However, once you actively get in the way of official federal policing business, you are no longer a peaceful protester.
That is absolute nonsense. You can be a peaceful protestor whilst still inconveniencing the authorities.
Possibly the most famous non-violent protestor of all time is the unnamed man who stood in front of a column of tanks at Tiananmen Square.
Another contender would be Gandhi, who promoted civil disobedience for peaceful protesting.
> No. It's not. Governments are not natural. So you have no "fundamental" rights here.
You could make the same moot point about all societal laws. Fundamental rights are determined by the constitution, the UN declaration of human rights, as well as any other local charters.
Governments are natural; nature abhors a vacuum.
Governments which at least pay lip service to the premise of respecting people's rights are another matter entirely.
> Protesting is not something you should do "casually”
Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order.
These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted. If we played by Trump’s book, we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives.
Realistically, we now know that the Hunter Biden Pardon (preemptive) is available and the Capitol Riots Pardon (mass pardon) is available. Given that, it’s only optimal for an outgoing cynical Republican President to preemptively pardon his allies on the street.
That only works for federal charges. Just don’t tell that to the president. Or do, he won’t remember anyway.
> we now know that the Hunter Biden Pardon (preemptive) is available and the Capitol Riots Pardon (mass pardon) is available
No we don’t. Nobody has tested these in court. Trump has no incentive to.
If Trump actually wanted to violently undermine the constitutional order there would be a lot of dead judges by now.
Unnecessary when he owns the Supreme Court and his thugs routinely ignore court orders.
Here is a more pedantic description then for you - "undermine the constitutional order by employing elevated (to various degree) amount of violence."
> If Trump actually wanted to violently undermine the constitutional order there would be a lot of dead judges by now
Hitler’s brown shirts didn’t start by killing judges. They started with voter (and lawmaker) intimidation.
> Neither is violently undermining our Constitutional order.
Ah, the "ends justify the means" then? Is this something you want applied _against_ you? Seems reckless.
> These folks should be on notice that they will be prosecuted.
They will not.
> If we played by Trump’s book
Moral relativism will turn you into the thing you profess to hate.
> we’d charge them with treason and then let them appeal against the death penalty for the rest of their lives.
Words have actual meaning. We're clearly past that and just choosing words that match emotional states. If you don't want to fix anything and just want to demonstrate your frustrations then this will work. If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude.
I'm not choosing sides. I'm simply saying if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up.
> Is this something you want applied _against_ you?
It’s literally happening. And sure. If I try to murder the Vice President or murder Americans as part of a political stunt, hold me to account. Those were the rules I thought we were all playing by.
> If you want something to change you stand no chance with this attitude
Strongly disagree. There are new political tools on the table. Unilaterally disarming is strategically stupid.
> if you want to avoid FBI attention then take your heart off your sleeve and smarten up
I’m going to bet I’ve gotten more language written into state and federal law than you have. That isn’t a flex. It’s just me saying that I know how to wield power, it and doesn’t come from trying to avoid crooked federal agents. If they’re crooked, they’ll come for you when you speak up. In my experience, they’re more bark than bite.
Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity. It was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental check on the federal government in order to recognize the natural right of a self-governing people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.
What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.