Comment by zahlman

Comment by zahlman 4 days ago

> any opposition is a crime of impeding and obstruction

No; conspiracy to impede and obstruct is a crime.

If you are about to do something I don't want you to do, but which is lawful for you to do, 1A covers me saying "hey, don't do that". It does not cover me physically positioning myself in a way that prevents you from doing it. And if you happen to be an LEO and the thing you're about to do is a law enforcement action, it would be unlawful for me to adopt such positioning. It is unlawful even if I only significantly impede you.

And ICE are federal LEO.

quickthrowman 4 days ago

Portland Ave at 32nd St E is a one-way two-lane road with a bike/bus lane. It was formerly a three-lane one-way road.

Reply View 0 replies

direwolf20 4 days ago

One of the victims was blocking half the low traffic road and intending for people to pass freely on the other half. The other was filming from a distance.

Reply View 4 replies

zahlman 4 days ago

> blocking half the low traffic road and intending for people to pass freely on the other half.
Which is obstructive, especially given that there was parking on both sides and everyone is in an SUV.
> The other was filming from a distance.
No, he is very clearly seen on video in the middle of the road directing traffic, and then physically interposing himself between an officer and another person who the officer may have intended to place under arrest, and then physically resisting arrest. At no point in the altercation did officers close the "distance"; he was the one who moved in.

Reply View | 2 replies
- direwolf20 4 days ago
  
  Does parking on a road justify a death penalty without trial?
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  zahlman 4 days ago
  
  That is not the argument being made, and that framing is intellectually dishonest.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
nailer 4 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View | 0 replies

TheOtherHobbes 4 days ago

Conspiracy to impede and obstruct criminal behaviour is not a crime, it's legitimate self-defence.

The fact that federal agents are breaking the law doesn't change that. At all.

In spite of what you've been told federal LEO are bound by the law.

Executing random bystanders on a whim, operating without visible ID, failing to allow congressional oversight of facilities, failing to give those captured access to a lawyer - among many, many others - all put this operation far outside of any reasonable claim to proportionality or legality.

Reply View 7 replies

zahlman 4 days ago

[flagged]

Reply View | 6 replies
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 4 days ago
  
  > The behaviour being impeded and obstructed is not criminal. It is, in fact, law enforcement.
  If the behavior appears criminal at a glance, it is reasonable to step in; law enforcement should be aware of this and exhibit accordingly professional behavior such that it does not appear to be so criminally violent. The simple fact they're law enforcement is moot to whether said behavior is criminal, seeing as law enforcement can still be charge with crimes.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
- ddtaylor 4 days ago
  
  [flagged]
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  oceanplexian 4 days ago
  
  If you believe that, then the right process is for the legal system to deal with it. If you feel aggrieved by the legal system you should vote to change it. Nowhere in the social contract is it even remotely acceptable to act as a vigilante and respond with violence.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies