bearister said:

---

I think he is saying this (known in the Black community as The Talk):

You should always follow the instructions of a law enforcement officer because they have guns, and some of them have inadequate training, panic in tense situations or are not psychologically suited to be officers and they may kill or wound you under circumstances that did not merit the use of deadly force.

*Follow the instructions of the officer and if they have violated your civil rights then hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit. This is preferable to not following instructions, getting shot and killed, and having your heirs file a wrongful death lawsuit.

*Oh, and BTW, a law enforcement officer that uses deadly force when it was not justified does not get a license to kill/free pass simply because the decedent didn't follow instructions.

---

Yeah that's the same talk everyone should be having. Respect law enforcement. Battle it in court.

Good thing for the ICE officer, this was a justified shoot

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Long term accountability will be coming for ICE agents who break the law. They and ICE crimes are being documented. The smart thing for them to do would be to find a new job now because when when a colleague of theirs breaks the law in a shared operation they could also be culpable.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/personal-details-of-thousands-of-border-patrol-and-ice-goons-allegedly-leaked-in-huge-data-breach/

---

Good quote from the article:

[ICE] officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists," but "thanks to the malicious rhetoric of sanctuary politicians, they are under constant threat from violent agitators."

---

Would be nice but ICE doesn't actually do that. Isn't it pretty to think so though

UNITY OVER DIVISION

VOTE GAVIN

Go Bears Forever

---

It is also pretty to think that Renee Good and her wife were just innocently hanging out passively documenting ICE's activities. You probably presumed they just got there and boom, picked on by ICE, am I right?

---

They were actively protesting and the ICE agents wildly overreacted to it and killed one of them.

---

Why isn't ICE just shooting all the protesters then?

---

Because this was one of the worst incidents that escalated to death. Most of the time they just want to pull people out of their cars and scare them a little bit. This one went very badly.

---

Or maybe it's because she tried to run him over with her car

---

Most of the ICE mistakes I discuss happened before that. And she clearly didn't TRY to run him over with her car. You guys still pushing that line?

---

It's too grainy to tell…

You're missing the point. Why aren't they shooting everyone they try to pull out of cars?

---

Renee Good made a poor decision to try to drive away while a cop was in front of her car.

But IMO this kind of thing was inevitable with ICE following these poor practices. That's why real police departments tell their officers not to behave this way and discipline them if they do. There are going to be people who freak out and make poor decisions. Good police work can minimize the harm.

---

So we are in agreement then that it was her poor decisions that caused her to get shot and killed.

---

No.

---

Then why isn't ICE shooting everyone who they try to pull out of their car?

If the only difference is she tried to drive through an ICE agent, that would imply it was her direct action of trying to drive through an ICE agent that got her shot. Aka, her fault

---

None of this situation is created with better police work, aka, ICE's fault.

"Good thing for the ICE officer, this was a justified shoot."

You won't find much support for that opinion among police use of force experts. Best case scenario was the officer panicked and acted inappropriately, probably because he was suffering from PTSD arising from an injury he recently suffered in a prior on duty encounter.

He won't suffer any consequences. Trump's personal DOJ will never prosecute him, if state court proceedings are filed the case will be removed to Federal court and dismissed. Any civil action in Federal court will face major hurdles.

Bottom line: That officer is going to get away with it and he may do it again.

bearister said:

---

"Good thing for the ICE officer, this was a justified shoot."

You won't find much support for that opinion among police use of force experts. Best case scenario was the officer panicked and acted inappropriately, probably because he was suffering from PTSD arising from an injury he recently suffered in a prior on duty encounter.

He won't suffer any consequences. Trump's personal DOJ will never prosecute him, if state court proceedings are filed the case will be removed to Federal court and dismissed. Any civil action in Federal court will face major hurdles.

Bottom line: That officer is going to get away with it and he may do it again.

---

He's going to get away with it because it was justified by her actions.

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Long term accountability will be coming for ICE agents who break the law. They and ICE crimes are being documented. The smart thing for them to do would be to find a new job now because when when a colleague of theirs breaks the law in a shared operation they could also be culpable.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/personal-details-of-thousands-of-border-patrol-and-ice-goons-allegedly-leaked-in-huge-data-breach/

---

Good quote from the article:

[ICE] officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists," but "thanks to the malicious rhetoric of sanctuary politicians, they are under constant threat from violent agitators."

---

Would be nice but ICE doesn't actually do that. Isn't it pretty to think so though

UNITY OVER DIVISION

VOTE GAVIN

Go Bears Forever

---

It is also pretty to think that Renee Good and her wife were just innocently hanging out passively documenting ICE's activities. You probably presumed they just got there and boom, picked on by ICE, am I right?

---

They were actively protesting and the ICE agents wildly overreacted to it and killed one of them.

---

Why isn't ICE just shooting all the protesters then?

---

Because this was one of the worst incidents that escalated to death. Most of the time they just want to pull people out of their cars and scare them a little bit. This one went very badly.

---

Or maybe it's because she tried to run him over with her car

---

Most of the ICE mistakes I discuss happened before that. And she clearly didn't TRY to run him over with her car. You guys still pushing that line?

---

It's too grainy to tell…

You're missing the point. Why aren't they shooting everyone they try to pull out of cars?

---

Renee Good made a poor decision to try to drive away while a cop was in front of her car.

But IMO this kind of thing was inevitable with ICE following these poor practices. That's why real police departments tell their officers not to behave this way and discipline them if they do. There are going to be people who freak out and make poor decisions. Good police work can minimize the harm.

---

So we are in agreement then that it was her poor decisions that caused her to get shot and killed.

---

No.

---

Then why isn't ICE shooting everyone who they try to pull out of their car?

If the only difference is she tried to drive through an ICE agent, that would imply it was her direct action of trying to drive through an ICE agent that got her shot. Aka, her fault

---

None of this situation is created with better police work, aka, ICE's fault.

---

If she had gotten out of her car, she would be alive. True or false?

If anything, it's her partners fault for yelling at her to drive and her fault for driving.

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

bearister said:

---

"Good thing for the ICE officer, this was a justified shoot."

You won't find much support for that opinion among police use of force experts.

---

Wasn't hard to find at all

The ICE shooting in Minneapolis was Justified and as a use of force expert, this was clearly self defense.

Listen, I tell people this all the time…comply to survive. You only have control over your actions, you can’t control the actions of officers. God bless! pic.twitter.com/CgoM0pS7oP

— Nathan Daley (@realnathandaley) January 9, 2026

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Long term accountability will be coming for ICE agents who break the law. They and ICE crimes are being documented. The smart thing for them to do would be to find a new job now because when when a colleague of theirs breaks the law in a shared operation they could also be culpable.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/personal-details-of-thousands-of-border-patrol-and-ice-goons-allegedly-leaked-in-huge-data-breach/

---

Good quote from the article:

[ICE] officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists," but "thanks to the malicious rhetoric of sanctuary politicians, they are under constant threat from violent agitators."

---

Would be nice but ICE doesn't actually do that. Isn't it pretty to think so though

Go Bears Forever

---

Where's the evidence to back this up because that's entirely untrue

---

Nope, stop being the useful puppet

UNITY OVER DIVISION

VOTE GAVIN
'
Go Bears Forever

---

So there's no evidence. Good argument

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

SBGold said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Democratic party has forgot its past and abandoned its roots.

1995. Presidential Radio Address.

Clinton: It does not matter if they have committed crimes while here. They came here illegally. That's a crime. They have to go.

In 1995 the entire country agreed with this. It was common sense. Now Democrats call this fascism and hate speech. pic.twitter.com/1YetyEnpXQ

— MAZE (@mazemoore) January 13, 2026

---

Who says crime committers have a right to stay here? I don't know of anyone and I'm hella lib

---

Well Renee was interfering with ICE while they were trying to get an illegal who committed a crime so….

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Long term accountability will be coming for ICE agents who break the law. They and ICE crimes are being documented. The smart thing for them to do would be to find a new job now because when when a colleague of theirs breaks the law in a shared operation they could also be culpable.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/personal-details-of-thousands-of-border-patrol-and-ice-goons-allegedly-leaked-in-huge-data-breach/

---

Good quote from the article:

[ICE] officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists," but "thanks to the malicious rhetoric of sanctuary politicians, they are under constant threat from violent agitators."

---

Would be nice but ICE doesn't actually do that. Isn't it pretty to think so though

Go Bears Forever

---

Where's the evidence to back this up because that's entirely untrue

---

Nope, stop being the useful puppet

UNITY OVER DIVISION

VOTE GAVIN
'
Go Bears Forever

---

So there's no evidence. Good argument

---

I'm not going to do homework for you when you have not even the homework for your erroneous statements. AI has made MAGA types so lazy

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

---

Well you're just flat out wrong.

ICE agents can lawfully arrest or detain a U.S. citizen if they impede, obstruct, interfere with, resist, oppose, or assault the agents while they are performing their official duties such as during an immigration enforcement operation, raid, or arrest.

The main statute is 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

This covers actions like physically blocking an agent's path, refusing lawful orders to move aside during an operation, shielding a target, assaulting an agent, or using force/threats to hinder enforcement.

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Long term accountability will be coming for ICE agents who break the law. They and ICE crimes are being documented. The smart thing for them to do would be to find a new job now because when when a colleague of theirs breaks the law in a shared operation they could also be culpable.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/personal-details-of-thousands-of-border-patrol-and-ice-goons-allegedly-leaked-in-huge-data-breach/

---

Good quote from the article:

[ICE] officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists," but "thanks to the malicious rhetoric of sanctuary politicians, they are under constant threat from violent agitators."

---

Would be nice but ICE doesn't actually do that. Isn't it pretty to think so though

Go Bears Forever

---

Where's the evidence to back this up because that's entirely untrue

---

Nope, stop being the useful puppet

UNITY OVER DIVISION

VOTE GAVIN
'
Go Bears Forever

---

So there's no evidence. Good argument

---

I'm not going to do homework for you when you have not even the homework for your erroneous statements. AI has made MAGA types so lazy

---

Love it. Can't give evidence so you fall back to insults. You're a troll

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

Nope.

Agents can detain US citizens in limited circumstances, such as if a person interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or ICE suspect the person of being in the US illegally."

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Long term accountability will be coming for ICE agents who break the law. They and ICE crimes are being documented. The smart thing for them to do would be to find a new job now because when when a colleague of theirs breaks the law in a shared operation they could also be culpable.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/personal-details-of-thousands-of-border-patrol-and-ice-goons-allegedly-leaked-in-huge-data-breach/

---

Good quote from the article:

[ICE] officers are on the frontlines arresting terrorists, gang members, murderers, pedophiles, and rapists," but "thanks to the malicious rhetoric of sanctuary politicians, they are under constant threat from violent agitators."

---

Would be nice but ICE doesn't actually do that. Isn't it pretty to think so though

Go Bears Forever

---

Where's the evidence to back this up because that's entirely untrue

---

Nope, stop being the useful puppet

UNITY OVER DIVISION

VOTE GAVIN
'
Go Bears Forever

---

So there's no evidence. Good argument

---

I'm not going to do homework for you when you have not even the homework for your erroneous statements. AI has made MAGA types so lazy

---

I'll do your homework for you since you are so very terribly wrong.

**70%** of recent arrests involve individuals with prior criminal records in the U.S.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/02/ice-rings-2026-more-arrests-worst-worst-criminal-illegal-aliens-including

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/05/new-year-same-mission-ice-arrests-more-worst-worst-criminal-illegal-aliens

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/06/ice-arrests-worst-worst-criminal-illegal-aliens-including-monster-13-convictions

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/07/ice-arrests-worst-worst-criminal-illegal-aliens-including-pedophiles-violent

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/12/americans-enjoyed-their-weekend-ice-law-enforcement-risked-their-lives-arrest-worst

https://www.ice.gov/newsroom.

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

Nope.

Agents can detain US citizens in limited circumstances, such as if a person interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or ICE suspect the person of being in the US illegally."

---

18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

---

Well you're just flat out wrong.

ICE agents can lawfully arrest or detain a U.S. citizen if they impede, obstruct, interfere with, resist, oppose, or assault the agents while they are performing their official duties such as during an immigration enforcement operation, raid, or arrest.

The main statute is 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

This covers actions like physically blocking an agent's path, refusing lawful orders to move aside during an operation, shielding a target, assaulting an agent, or using force/threats to hinder enforcement.

---

The question for a jury (and a charging US Attorney) would be whether her actions rise to the level of "interference". Not at ALL clear in this case.

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

---

Well you're just flat out wrong.

ICE agents can lawfully arrest or detain a U.S. citizen if they impede, obstruct, interfere with, resist, oppose, or assault the agents while they are performing their official duties such as during an immigration enforcement operation, raid, or arrest.

The main statute is 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

This covers actions like physically blocking an agent's path, refusing lawful orders to move aside during an operation, shielding a target, assaulting an agent, or using force/threats to hinder enforcement.

---

The question for a jury (and a charging US Attorney) would be whether her actions rise to the level of "interference". Not at ALL clear in this case.

---

Incredibly clear in this case

bearister said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

bearister said:

---

"Good thing for the ICE officer, this was a justified shoot."

You won't find much support for that opinion among police use of force experts. Best case scenario was the officer panicked and acted inappropriately, probably because he was suffering from PTSD arising from an injury he recently suffered in a prior on duty encounter.

He won't suffer any consequences. Trump's personal DOJ will never prosecute him, if state court proceedings are filed the case will be removed to Federal court and dismissed. Any civil action in Federal court will face major hurdles.

Bottom line: That officer is going to get away with it and he may do it again.

---

He's going to get away with it because it was justified by her actions.

---

---

Of course you'd post a gif or video instead of using your words

BearlySane88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

---

Well you're just flat out wrong.

ICE agents can lawfully arrest or detain a U.S. citizen if they impede, obstruct, interfere with, resist, oppose, or assault the agents while they are performing their official duties such as during an immigration enforcement operation, raid, or arrest.

The main statute is 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

This covers actions like physically blocking an agent's path, refusing lawful orders to move aside during an operation, shielding a target, assaulting an agent, or using force/threats to hinder enforcement.

---

The question for a jury (and a charging US Attorney) would be whether her actions rise to the level of "interference". Not at ALL clear in this case.

---

Incredibly clear in this case

---

HOW? Is she actively blocking the car transporting the detainee? Is she laying down in front of the detainee's door? How is it interfering? Annoying? No doubt. But what is YOUR line. By this logic really any observation of them is "interfering" cause their next claim is that by just being present you make their job harder - ergo interfering.

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

---

Well you're just flat out wrong.

ICE agents can lawfully arrest or detain a U.S. citizen if they impede, obstruct, interfere with, resist, oppose, or assault the agents while they are performing their official duties such as during an immigration enforcement operation, raid, or arrest.

The main statute is 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

This covers actions like physically blocking an agent's path, refusing lawful orders to move aside during an operation, shielding a target, assaulting an agent, or using force/threats to hinder enforcement.

---

The question for a jury (and a charging US Attorney) would be whether her actions rise to the level of "interference". Not at ALL clear in this case.

---

Incredibly clear in this case

---

HOW? Is she actively blocking the car transporting the detainee? Is she laying down in front of the detainee's door? How is it interfering? Annoying? No doubt. But what is YOUR line. By this logic really any observation of them is "interfering" cause their next claim is that by just being present you make their job harder - ergo interfering.

---

Stopping your car perpendicular in the road blocking one of two lanes for a full 5 minutes is simply annoying and not interfering? Christ!

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

---

Well you're just flat out wrong.

ICE agents can lawfully arrest or detain a U.S. citizen if they impede, obstruct, interfere with, resist, oppose, or assault the agents while they are performing their official duties such as during an immigration enforcement operation, raid, or arrest.

The main statute is 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

This covers actions like physically blocking an agent's path, refusing lawful orders to move aside during an operation, shielding a target, assaulting an agent, or using force/threats to hinder enforcement.

---

The question for a jury (and a charging US Attorney) would be whether her actions rise to the level of "interference". Not at ALL clear in this case.

---

Incredibly clear in this case

---

HOW? Is she actively blocking the car transporting the detainee? Is she laying down in front of the detainee's door? How is it interfering? Annoying? No doubt. But what is YOUR line. By this logic really any observation of them is "interfering" cause their next claim is that by just being present you make their job harder - ergo interfering.

---

She's actively blocking the street so yes . She's actively honking and informing the illegals that ICE is there. She's interfering with their work. Not sure how else to explain it to you

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

---

Well you're just flat out wrong.

ICE agents can lawfully arrest or detain a U.S. citizen if they impede, obstruct, interfere with, resist, oppose, or assault the agents while they are performing their official duties such as during an immigration enforcement operation, raid, or arrest.

The main statute is 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

This covers actions like physically blocking an agent's path, refusing lawful orders to move aside during an operation, shielding a target, assaulting an agent, or using force/threats to hinder enforcement.

---

The question for a jury (and a charging US Attorney) would be whether her actions rise to the level of "interference". Not at ALL clear in this case.

---

Incredibly clear in this case

---

HOW? Is she actively blocking the car transporting the detainee? Is she laying down in front of the detainee's door? How is it interfering? Annoying? No doubt. But what is YOUR line. By this logic really any observation of them is "interfering" cause their next claim is that by just being present you make their job harder - ergo interfering.

---

Stopping your car perpendicular in the road blocking one of two lanes for a full 5 minutes is simply annoying and not interfering? Christ!

---

It was also a one way street meaning any argument that she was doing a three point turn is absolutely absurd.

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

---

Well you're just flat out wrong.

ICE agents can lawfully arrest or detain a U.S. citizen if they impede, obstruct, interfere with, resist, oppose, or assault the agents while they are performing their official duties such as during an immigration enforcement operation, raid, or arrest.

The main statute is 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

This covers actions like physically blocking an agent's path, refusing lawful orders to move aside during an operation, shielding a target, assaulting an agent, or using force/threats to hinder enforcement.

---

The question for a jury (and a charging US Attorney) would be whether her actions rise to the level of "interference". Not at ALL clear in this case.

---

Incredibly clear in this case

---

HOW? Is she actively blocking the car transporting the detainee? Is she laying down in front of the detainee's door? How is it interfering? Annoying? No doubt. But what is YOUR line. By this logic really any observation of them is "interfering" cause their next claim is that by just being present you make their job harder - ergo interfering.

---

His line is like all the other MAGA supporters, he's a useful puppet that states what he is told

and they all want you to forget about: Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein

UNITY OVER DIVISION
VOTE GAVIN
Go Bears Forever

SBGold said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

SBGold said:

---

oski003 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Your assessment is completely dishonest. She tried to run over the ICE agent. The officer had every right to protect himself.

---

My assessment considers the whole context. The ICE agents should not even have put themselves in that position. They did so because they were looking for a confrontation. You want to consider only the narrow portion where a car started maybe moving towards one of them, because it's more comfortable for your narrative.

---

And you contend that they should just let her be, that the agents should let a woman block half the street while her wife yelled f bombs at them and just go on their merry way. The agents had EVERY RIGHT to ask her out of her car, even if you really really want people to be able to follow around ICE, block streets for minutes, and cuss them out while they are trying to do their jobs. She should have complied.

---

yes!!! BECAUSE IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND. ICE'S POWER IS EXTREMELY LIMITED!!!

That is really the sad part of this. ICE can not enforce traffic laws (they could not give her a ticket). They can not detain people they know are lawful citizens.

Now the President - you know one that had half a functioning brain - would have known this and gone to congress and gotten the laws changed. He could have made the case that to deal with the invasion of our country and the moral outrage he needed X, Y and Z. If failed he could have gone and asked for a mandate in the midterms. Democracy is messy and often difficult. God bless our constitution that it is.

So no. She should NOT have "complied" because ICE had no power to order her to do anything unless she was ACTIVELY obstructing (I don't see that) their effort to do their job. Being annoying and honking a horn or blowiing a whistle (or what the administration has pointed to in other cases - telling people their rights through flyering and websites) is NOT obstructing.

God we have so many little authoritarians. Our grandfathers who fought facism would be embarassed.

---

ICE can temporarily detain citizens. Full stop.

ICE can order someone out of their car if they are violating a law while obstructing them from doing their job.

---

ICE cannot lawfully detain U.S. citizens

---

Well you're just flat out wrong.

ICE agents can lawfully arrest or detain a U.S. citizen if they impede, obstruct, interfere with, resist, oppose, or assault the agents while they are performing their official duties such as during an immigration enforcement operation, raid, or arrest.

The main statute is 18 U.S.C. 111, which makes it a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers or employees (including ICE agents, as designated under related sections like 18 U.S.C. 1114) while they are engaged in or on account of their official duties.

This covers actions like physically blocking an agent's path, refusing lawful orders to move aside during an operation, shielding a target, assaulting an agent, or using force/threats to hinder enforcement.

---

The question for a jury (and a charging US Attorney) would be whether her actions rise to the level of "interference". Not at ALL clear in this case.

---

Incredibly clear in this case

---

HOW? Is she actively blocking the car transporting the detainee? Is she laying down in front of the detainee's door? How is it interfering? Annoying? No doubt. But what is YOUR line. By this logic really any observation of them is "interfering" cause their next claim is that by just being present you make their job harder - ergo interfering.

---

His line is like all the other MAGA supporters, he's a useful puppet that states what he is told

and they all want you to forget about: Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein Epstein

UNITY OVER DIVISION
VOTE GAVIN
Go Bears Forever

---

So you're gonna ignore all the evidence in this thread proving you wrong on two different topics? Shouldn't have expected anything less from a troll.

Btw, I'm on record multiple times saying I want the files released so your post is not only childish but also entirely false.

Liberal white women are the worst. I stand by this statement and you're proving me right

SBGold said:

---

Zippergate said:

---

Democratic party has forgot its past and abandoned its roots.

1995. Presidential Radio Address.

Clinton: It does not matter if they have committed crimes while here. They came here illegally. That's a crime. They have to go.

In 1995 the entire country agreed with this. It was common sense. Now Democrats call this fascism and hate speech. pic.twitter.com/1YetyEnpXQ

— MAZE (@mazemoore) January 13, 2026

---

Who says crime committers have a right to stay here? I don't know of anyone and I'm hella lib

---

The ICE protesters are stopping ICE from seizing anyone, criminal record or not. And even if they think the illegal neighbor they are protecting has no criminal record, how do they really know that? They don't. Think, man, think.

Fact: most of people people being deported have criminal records and these paid protestors and krazy karens you people defend are illegally preventing ICE from doing its job.

But even the non-criminals need to play by the rules. Even your patron saint, BHO, agreed. He deported at least 3 million illegals during his presidency. And if his predecessor had flooded the country with illegals the way Biden's handlers did, Barry would have deported even more.

No, this is not AI.

2011. President Obama goes to the border and touts his border security and immigration law enforcement efforts.

He actually talked about building a fence along the border. He also talked about deportations.

Obama: As long as the laws are on the books, it's… pic.twitter.com/ScNNKfh6gl

— MAZE (@mazemoore) January 14, 2026

You think all three million people deported by BHO were criminals?