Comment by db48x

Comment by db48x 5 days ago

89 replies

View on Hacker News

Don’t be disingenuous. The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job.

These groups are also documented to have harassed people who are _not_ federal officers under the mistaken impression that they are. That’s just assault. Probably stalking too. Anyone who participates in these groups will be committing crimes, and should be prosecuted for it.

If you don’t like the job that an officer is doing then the right thing to do is to talk to your Congress–critter about changing the law. Keep in mind that ICE is executing a law that was passed in 1995 with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. No attempt has been made to modify that law in the last 30 years. If Democrats didn’t like it, they had several majorities during that time when they could have forced through changes. They didn’t even bother.

istjohn 5 days ago

These groups exist to observe and document the actions of federal agents and share that information with their communities. That is constitutionally protected activity.

Reply View 2 replies
  • Empact 5 days ago

    Their stated purpose and their actual function can be different, and speech that would otherwise be free can be illegal if involved in incitement, bribery, collusion, etc.

    If I’m having a conversation with my friend, it’s free speech. If we’re plotting the overthrow of the government, it’s insurrection.

    Reply View 0 replies
protocolture 5 days ago

>The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs.

To observe them, and prevent them from committing crimes. Which if it isn't legal, is moral as all get out.

"Jobs" Nurmberg lol. Not an argument.

Reply View 3 replies
  • account42 4 days ago

    [flagged]

    Reply View 2 replies
    • protocolture 4 days ago

      >Being Disingenuous

      Crying disingenuous when I disagree with you isn't an argument.

      >but it won't change anything about what the FBI should and shouldn't do.

      What does that have to do with the price of wheat.

      >And neither does crying "Nazi" whenever someone does something you don't like.

      Why do you suddenly cry "Crying Nazi". Do you have sins to confess?

      Reply View 0 replies
idle_zealot 5 days ago

> to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job.

Filming officiers performing their jobs is not obstruction, even if it does make them uncomfortable. If it makes their jobs harder that's only because they know what they're doing is unpopular and don't want to be known to have done it.

> If you don’t like the job that an officer is doing then the right thing to do is to talk to your Congress–critter about changing the law. Keep in mind that ICE is executing a law that was passed in 1995 with bipartisan support in Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. No attempt has been made to modify that law in the last 30 years. If Democrats didn’t like it, they had several majorities during that time when they could have forced through changes. They didn’t even bother.

Yeah, there's a massive disconnect between politicians and their voters. This is pretty strong evidence of that disconnect. Even now Democrats refuse to support abolishing ICE, despite majority support among their constituency. Who are voters who want immigration reform supposed to cast their ballots for? There hasn't been such a candidate since ICE was created in the wake of 9/11. Conservatives got to let out their pent up frustration with an unresponsive government by electing Trump. Liberals have no such champion, only community organizing.

Reply View 20 replies
  • zahlman 4 days ago

    > Filming officiers performing their jobs is not obstruction

    This is irrelevant, because many people have been observed physically obstructing officers, whether or not they were filming at the time.

    > If it makes their jobs harder

    Have you heard the constant blowing of whistles in these videos? Did you know that protesters have organized the mass 3d-printing and distribution of these whistles (https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2025/12/not-just-a-toy-how-wh... ; https://www.startribune.com/whistle-symbol-ice-protest-minne... ; https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2026/01/21/chicagoa...)? Can you imagine how this level of noise interferes with a job that involves verbal communication with both coworkers and civilians?

    > Even now Democrats refuse to support abolishing ICE

    I'm not mistaken in my understanding that Tim Walz is a Democrat, am I? The one making public speeches falsely claiming that ICE aren't LEO and encouraging "peaceful protest" without mentioning anything about obstruction of justice or resisting arrest?

    And you're aware that the Signal groups in question are alleged to include Democratic state officials and a campaign advisor?

    For that matter, exactly what do you mean by "abolishing ICE"? Should it not be replaced? Should immigration law not be enforced? Should the USA allow everyone to reside within its borders who wishes to do so, with no barriers to entry?

    Reply View 14 replies
    • account42 4 days ago

      > Have you heard the constant blowing of whistles in these videos? Did you know that protesters have organized the mass 3d-printing and distribution of these whistles (https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2025/12/not-just-a-toy-how-wh... ; https://www.startribune.com/whistle-symbol-ice-protest-minne... ; https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2026/01/21/chicagoa...)? Can you imagine how this level of noise interferes with a job that involves verbal communication with both coworkers and civilians?

      Not to mention that the point is also to alert illegals of the LEO presence so that they can get away.

      Reply View 0 replies
    • watwut 4 days ago

      First you are lying. Second, noise is not an obstruction. It is ok and legal to produce whistles.

      What is not legal is point guns at journalists, beat people who record you on the phones and shoot people in the back because they had phone in hand and you are frustrated. What is not legal is to throw pepper spray at people who are no threat. One gotta love the "they mass produce whistles" as a grave accusation while ICE men literally openly threaten to kill people who are no threat. Or kill them and then are proud of their murdering colleagues.

      > I'm not mistaken in my understanding that Tim Walz is a Democrat, am I? The one making public speeches falsely claiming that ICE aren't LEO and encouraging "peaceful protest"

      Yes, he had good speeches.

      > without mentioning anything about obstruction of justice or resisting arrest?

      Lol, heavily armed cowards jump at observer, 8 on one, there is no resistance and then they call it resisting arrest.

      > For that matter, exactly what do you mean by "abolishing ICE"? Should it not be replaced? Should immigration law not be enforced? Should the USA allow everyone to reside within its borders who wishes to do so, with no barriers to entry?

      ICE is basically a violent gang with impossible to reform culture. You dont hire gangmembers to do law enforcement. It needs to be abolished and people in it need to be banned from working in law enforcement.

      Reply View 2 replies
      • zahlman 4 days ago

        [flagged]

        Reply View 1 reply
        • Supermancho 3 days ago

          >> Filming officiers performing their jobs is not obstruction

          > This is irrelevant, because many people have been observed physically obstructing officers, whether or not they were filming at the time.

          The OP made a point and you constructed the strawman of a hasty generalization. This is disingenuous.

          >> while ICE men literally openly threaten to kill people who are no threat.

          > Please show me where you think this has happened.

          Re: "You raise your voice, I erase your voice," - January 27, 2026 Free speech is a right and I support their right to say whatever they want. They are subject to their own policies beyond that.

          > he was not an "observer" (as demonstrated by the fact that he was in the middle of the street and a car had to swerve to avoid him),

          You are cherry picking. He was an observer, among other things.

          >> and then are proud of their murdering colleagues

          > Please show me where you think this has happened.

          10s in - https://youtube.com/shorts/IUBkPWVg3yY?si=eYXwZ5qmL6JmXYjr

          I'm not trying to get you to agree with anything, but it's not constructive to continue. Many of your questions are asking other people for information that is readily available. Not everyone needs to agree on everything, but I don't think it's hard to understand the various sentiments.

          Reply View 0 replies
    • idle_zealot 4 days ago

      > This is irrelevant, because many people have been observed physically obstructing officers, whether or not they were filming at the time.

      Not the last guy they executed. He was recording, then backed away when an officer approached him. Then he got dogpiled, his holstered gun was taken, and then he was shot repeatedly.

      > Have you heard the constant blowing of whistles in these videos? Did you know that protesters have organized the mass 3d-printing and distribution of these whistles?

      I'm quite aware of the intentionally annoying whistles. You're taking a pretty broad interpretation of "interference." I didn't realize that feds had a protected right to a calm and quiet work environment.

      > I'm not mistaken in my understanding that Tim Walz is a Democrat, am I? The one making public speeches falsely claiming that ICE aren't LEO and encouraging "peaceful protest" without mentioning anything about obstruction of justice or resisting arrest?

      Yeah, Walz is a weak Democrat who can't even condemn the organization killing and abducting his State's citizens. Exactly the kind of politician voters are tired of. All he can say over and over is to "not take the bait" by resisting occupation more forcefully.

      > And you're aware that the Signal groups in question are alleged to include Democratic state officials and a campaign advisor?

      I've not heard that alleged, but it wouldn't be surprising for some to be monitoring the situation. If you mean to imply that Democrat officials are organizing the resistance then that's laughable. If you're a Conservative then there are only a handful of Dems you should be afraid of, and the rest of the Dems will help you make sure they're not too influential.

      > For that matter, exactly what do you mean by "abolishing ICE"? Should it not be replaced?

      A more focused INS under the DoJ would be a good reset. A paramilitary with twitchy trigger fingers is no way to enforce any law, much less something as nonviolent and bureaucratic as immigration. If someone is being violent, send the Police, hold a trial. If you need to sort out immigration status you can send a pencil pusher to get papers in order.

      > Should immigration law not be enforced? Should the USA allow everyone to reside within its borders who wishes to do so, with no barriers to entry?

      No barriers? No. Extremely low ones though, absolutely. You do realize that almost all undocumented people living in the US are on overstayed visas, right? We let them in after checking they weren't dangerous, then they started working and living here. Now they make up a sizable chunk of the population. Clearly our immigration system is broken if it leaves this many residents undocumented. And your proposed solution is strict enforcement?

      Imagine, if you will, applying this standard to, say, speeding. Repeated instances of speeding result in increasing fines, and eventually revocation of your license. That's what the law says! Should we not enforce this law?? Well. If we used cars' and phones' GPS and cameras to reconstruct a few days of driving behavior, then handed out punishment as dictated by law, 90% of drivers would instantly lose their license. Half of the population would be unable to go to work, buy food, of get their kids to school. It would be a disaster of historic scale. The problem then, is the law. To put it more succinctly: I am not a proponent of enforcing bad laws, and neither is just about anyone else here in reality.

      Reply View 9 replies
      • account42 4 days ago

        > I'm quite aware of the intentionally annoying whistles. You're taking a pretty broad interpretation of "interference." I didn't realize that feds had a protected right to a calm and quiet work environment.

        This kind of behavior would not be tolerated any more if it targeted other work environments. Harassment (and that's the most generous interpretation) is not free speech.

        Reply View 7 replies
  • Empact 4 days ago

    This is an inaccurate description of what they are doing. For example Renee Good was actively blockading a street, by placing her car perpendicularly across it. Some may be engaged in observation, but that is not broadly the case, and organizationally, their apparent goal is to obstruct.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • idle_zealot 4 days ago

      If she was trying to blokade the street she was doing a pretty bad job. A car goes past hers in the video where the murderer shoots her three times and calls her a "fucking bitch" while her corpse weights down the gas and her SUV goes careening down the road.

      That's just normal law enforcement behavior though. I'm sure if she hadn't been short with him he would've otherwise been well-behaved and enforced our immigration laws without incident.

      Reply View 0 replies
  • account42 4 days ago

    > despite majority support among their constituency

    A very vocal minority is not a majority.

    Reply View 2 replies
trhway 5 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View 53 replies
  • db48x 5 days ago

    I am talking about 8 USC chapter 12 subsection II (<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/chapter-12>). This is the law that defines how immigration works in the US, and how illegal aliens are removed. ICE is the Federal agency assigned to the task of locating and removing illegal aliens. Even if you don’t like that illegal aliens are being removed, it is illegal to try to prevent a federal agent from doing just that. Instead you should be trying to change the law so that the job doesn’t exist.

    Reply View 52 replies
    • direwolf20 4 days ago

      Can you quote the part of 8 USC chapter 12 subsection II where it says you get to murder everyone you disagree with?

      Reply View 0 replies
    • trhway 5 days ago

      Why change? I've just randomly clicked through, and it is a good law, for example :

      (1) Right of counsel The alien shall have a right to be present at such hearing and to be represented by counsel. Any alien financially unable to obtain counsel shall be entitled to have counsel assigned to represent the alien. Such counsel shall be appointed by the judge pursuant to the plan for furnishing representation for any person financially unable to obtain adequate representation for the district in which the hearing is conducted, as provided for in section 3006A of title 18.

      When you're saying that ICE is executing that law, are you saying that the guys sent to that Guatemala prison were afforded that right of counsel and were given a lawyer? Or anybody else in those mass deportations.

      I also couldn't find in that law where it makes it legal to randomly catch dark skinned people on the street, including citizens.

      Reply View 40 replies
      • epistasis 5 days ago

        There are two conceptions of law currently in the US. The first is what we see on TV, with lawyers and judges and law enforcement attempting, most often successfully, to apply a set of rules to everyone equally.

        The second conception of law is what the federal government is doing now: oppression of opponents of the powerful, and protection of the powerful from any harm they cause to others.

        We are currently in a battle to see which side wins. In many ways the struggle of the US, as it has become more free, is a struggle for the first conception to win over the second. When we had the Civil War, the first conception of law won. I hope it wins again.

        Reply View 2 replies
      • zahlman 4 days ago

        The extraditions are of people who have already had a hearing and are subject to a final order of removal.

        Reply View 28 replies
    • 8note 4 days ago

      which part of the immigration code lets ice agents kill citizens?

      Reply View 9 replies
jakelazaroff 5 days ago

> The people in these groups are coordinating for a specific reason: to follow federal agents around, harass them, and prevent them from doing their jobs. That’s textbook Obstruction of Justice. It is illegal to prevent an officer from doing their job.

If that's the case, then why has no one been prosecuted on those grounds?

Reply View 5 replies
  • zahlman 4 days ago

    [flagged]

    Reply View 4 replies
    • defrost 4 days ago

      She was fully within her legal rights, as has been pointed out many times by US civil rights lawyers including those that have successfully defended MAGA people deplatformed during the past administration.

      Your "assumption" is simply incorrect.

      Reply View 3 replies