With due respect to the gentleman, having a Signal chat is not evidence of a military organization. I have several myself, without in any way being involved in an insurgency. It's just good sense these days to use end-to-end encryption to keep from being spied on by corporations, even more than governments.
What ICE and other agencies are doing is deeply questionable and of reasonable concern. Keeping an eye on them and reporting any abuses is sensible and good citizenship. We are meant to be a self-governing society. Citizens should keep watch on every activity of government, and restrain it as they feel is appropriate. It is, after all, the citizens who are the ultimate sovereigns of the United States.
That doesn't mean that some groups don't get out of hand and over-react, of course.
Still and all, if this were an insurgency instead of a citizen watch there would be a lot of dead cops. Americans have 400,000,000 guns in private hands and trillions of rounds of ammunition. There are a lot of angry protesters, and some of them armed: but there aren't any dead cops. There are two dead protesters, so far.
What the government at all levels ought to take time to consider is how deeply the sovereign citizenry is rejecting this in at least some localities. I don't know or claim to know just what that means; perhaps we should, as we have often discussed, divide the nation in some way to allow the divergent political views space. Nevertheless, citizens are allowed to diverge in their opinions. Nobody has the right to use main force to compel Americans to abide by their preferred ideas about how we should be governed.
A self-governing people will diverge. Sometimes compromises can be reached; sometimes not. Liberty implies diversity of opinion. We probably all agree about the color of the blue sky, but experience demonstrates that we have very different opinions about many things. If there is to be a free society, there has to be room for that.
What ICE and other agencies are doing is deeply questionable and of reasonable concern.
ReplyDeleteReally? In what way? I just see federal law enforcement officers enforcing federal law. These laws were democratically enacted. The chief executive enforcing them was duly elected in part by campaigning to enforce just these laws, winning not only the necessary electoral college vote but also the popular vote. Protesting against these laws and this enforcement action is very American, but obstructing law enforcement is a criminal act, and organized obstruction on the level we're seeing is insurrection. Lethality is not a necessary condition.
With due respect to the gentleman, having a Signal chat is not evidence of a military organization.
But he didn't say having a Signal chat is evidence of that. He said: "Signal groups at 1,000-member cap per zone. Dedicated roles: mobile chasers, plate checkers logging vehicle data into shared databases, 24/7 dispatch nodes vectoring assets, SALUTE-style reporting (Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, Equipment) on suspected federal vehicles. Daily chat rotations and timed deletions to frustrate forensic recovery. Vetting processes for new joiners. Mutual aid from sympathetic locals (teachers providing cover, possible PD tip-offs on license plate lookups). Home-base coordination points. Rapid escalation from observation to physical obstruction—or worse ..." among other things.
We also don't know how much of this is organic and how much is from outside actors and funding.
I agree that protest and keeping watch on law enforcement are good things. If that's all Ice Watch, etc., were doing, I would agree with you, but it isn't. It's organized obstruction to enforcing federal laws which have broad support among the American people, and it's obstruction done in a way to intentionally increase the danger to all involved. They want martyrs.
I could see a point in reconsidering based on genuine opposition by the people of MN, except that immigration law affects us all. Due to the way the census and apportionment work, illegals are counted for representation in Congress and for the Electoral College. Consequently, enforcement of immigration law across the nation is the concern of all Americans, not just the state or local communities.
There is already a democratic way to change immigration laws. Just because one side of the issue can't get a big enough majority to do so does not justify mass obstruction.
- Tom
DeleteAgreed, Tom. Protest is one thing, but these people are pushing the envelope far past "protest." (Remember the Good Old Days when we called it "peaceful protest"?)
DeleteFinal note: Congress will NEVER change immigration law. The entire Deep State likes it just the way it is, including those Holier-Than-Thou CEO's who wrote their silly letter. You think for one minute Hormel wants illegals out of the country? General Mills? Pillsbury?
Yeah, Dad29, this is one area where the Left are going against their own principles just for the sake of gaining power. The illegals are being exploited by capitalist businesses and the Left is fine with that because they get more power this way.
DeleteIn what way? Armed, masked and poorly trained agents killing people every week or so? That seems like cause for concern.
ReplyDeleteNow I do have a high tolerance for lawlessness; I think moonshine runners defying Prohibition were on the right side, even though they were defying the law (and even the Constitution). So too here; they might not have the institutional power to change the law, but a law that millions of people defy is objectively invalid in a self governing society. One of the tests of legitimacy— perhaps the ultimate test— is if the population rejects the law. That seems to be the case here.
The outcome of that could be that we can’t maintain a polity that includes Minnesota, or California. We will have to see. But this kind of violence against citizens is inherently delegitimizating of any government. It’s dangerous territory for any government.
That's interesting. What's your reasoning on moonshine runners?
Delete- Tom
...poorly trained agents killing people every week or so?
DeleteAn exaggeration. ICE has been in Minneapolis since the beginning of last December. Only two violent protestors were killed in the course of all of those weeks, and they only in the inevitable outcome of violence from Walz' and Frey's loud and divisive rhetoric inciting active resistance of "Nazi ICE," not protest. That the active resistance to "Nazis" spilled over to rioting and assaulting law enforcement officers shouldn't be surprising.
What evidence do you have for that claim? The only folks defying immigration laws and their enforcement that I've seen are in the Minneapolis neighborhoods where ICE is most active and a few scattered protests around the nation--and a number of politicians trying to make personal political hay out of the situation, of whom a blatant example is New York's Governor Hochul, who's busily denying her storm-struck counties access to Federal emergency aid unless and until the Feds pull ICE out of Minneapolis.
Even in radically anti-ICE and anti-Trump Chicago and Los Angeles, led by deeply radical mayors Bass and Johnson, the rioting and assaults on Federal law enforcers never developed to the point they have in Minneapolis. The ICE agents are present in Minneapolis in the numbers they are is strictly due to the active resistance and incitement of Walz and Frey.
Stipulate that the millions of illegal aliens still present don't like our immigration laws, they're plainly defying them by remaining illegal instead of taking any of the several avenues for getting right with the law; that seems to be the only source for "millions" defying.
Incidentally, Walz now is claiming he's been cooperating all along while denying that he's held any illegal alien in the State's prisons away from ICE. This is Walz insulting all of our intelligence: the problem with withholding incarcerated illegal aliens has nothing at all to do with State prisons; that problem is, and always has been, solely a local and county jail problem.
Now I do have a high tolerance for lawlessness....
I have a high tolerance for civil disobedience, but that requires suffering the consequences of the disobedience in order to point up the claimed invalidity of the law(s) being disobeyed. Lacking those consequences, it isn't civil disobedience, it's just lawlessness. It's tragic that two people were killed in the course of their violent obstructionism (not civil disobedience), but one of them was assaulting an agent with her SUV, and the other was actively and violently interfering with the arrest of another violent protestor and violently resisting his own subsequent arrest.
Eric Hines
"What's your reasoning on moonshine runners?"
DeleteRoughly this: sovereignty belongs to the People broadly considered, but political power is exercised by a much more limited group that happens to have control. When we find that the People broadly reject an unpopular law, even a Constitutional amendment, that suggests that the sovereign People are not aligned with the exercise of political power.
It's possible to examine Prohibition from several angles, some more flattering than others. What seems very clear, however, is that the American People didn't really want it even if the Progressives who found themselves in power did.
I don't know enough about how Prohibition was enacted to say much about it, but it's surprising that a Constitutional amendment could be passed without broad support. Getting 3/4s of states to vote for it seems to imply broad support.
DeleteI also don't know how to quantify opposition once it was enacted. We know there were a lot of people breaking the law, but is there any good way to know if it was broadly rejected rather than just loudly rejected by a minority? Do we have any way of knowing?
In any case, I'm certainly glad Prohibition was repealed! I'll be off to the mead shelf now, thank you.
I think, bringing it back to MN, it seems part of our disagreement is over numbers as well: I'm arguing for popular sovereignty for the American people, while you seem to be arguing for the popular sovereignty of the MN people.
There, too, I wonder about numbers. It seems like a blue city problem; I doubt all the Minnesotans out in the rural areas and small towns are opposed to the ICE operations in Minneapolis.
Looking at the 2024 election map for MN on Wikipedia, the majority of counties voted for Trump, but were overwhelmed by blue cities:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Minnesota
For the state as a whole, Harris got 50.92% (~1.66M) and Trump got 46.68% (~1.5M).
I really don't see broad opposition to ICE operations in the state. It's a blue city thing again, I think.
- Tom
"but a law that millions of people defy is objectively invalid in a self governing society. One of the tests of legitimacy— perhaps the ultimate test— is if the population rejects the law. That seems to be the case here."
DeletePeople- or citizens? Millions? Out of 330 million? How many is enough? Even in MN I don't think it's as many as you're implying with statements like this. Maybe I'm wrong. I haven't seen it. Activists are good at getting attention and look like the perceptions of their influence are vastly inflated over reality.
"But this kind of violence against citizens is inherently delegitimizating of any government."
Which kind of violence? Arresting people who interfere with the enforcement of the law that we voted to enforce fairly handily in the last presidential election? I am not clear on your argument here, but it could be taken any number of ways.
Meant to add to my response just above: even in Minneapolis' suburbs, the residents tend to be less enamored of the violent protests and more supportive (if not in the majority supportive) of ICE efforts at immigration law enforcement.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
I'm not sure which claim you're asking me for evidence about.
DeleteAs for the scale, it's also true that few Americans were killed in WWII before Pearl Harbor, or in the Civil War before First Manassas. If you measure from when the killing starts, though, it suddenly becomes cause for concern.
I don't agree with your interpretation of the videos we've all seen, but there's no point in us arguing about how to interpret them. Such differences are normal in contested cases, and I don't imply anything wrong in the fact that a difference exists between us here. Normally we'd concede authority to adjudicate the matter to a court of law; but in this case, no court seems to have authority. If the state tries the case, it'll get moved to Federal court where these unnamed and faceless agents have immunity. THAT is a problem.
I'm not sure which claim you're asking me for evidence about.
ReplyDeleteThe claim to which I was referring was a law that millions of people defy The blank lines preceding my evidence question response suggests that I messed up the HTML tags surrounding the claim I was questioning.
I don't agree with your interpretation of the videos we've all seen, but there's no point in us arguing about how to interpret them.
I'm not sure what videos you're referencing that I've interpreted. I don't recall interpreting any: I agree with you that there's no point in arguing about how to interpret them or to try to interpret them at all.
The videos the press is offering regarding the Pretti shooting, for instance, all are carefully edited for excerpts that are completely shorn of all context, as are the stills from those videos. The press has been doing this at least since the Rodney King "beating" in LA all those years ago, which published video was deliberately excerpted to support a press narrative--a distortion that was made obvious when actual evidence was presented in the police's trial.
What the press puts out as videos of the Pretti shooting is entirely unreliable.
My description of the two shootings are from published accounts, from a variety of outlets, of witness accounts and descriptions of ICE agent videos of the Good shooting.
Eric Hines
So the claim you wanted evidence about was this?
Delete"...a law that millions of people defy is objectively invalid..."
That's not a claim for which I can provide evidence; it's a philosophical claim rather than an empirical one. I derive it from, among other things, the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
It doesn't have to be millions; in a small enough society, it could be dozens.
Yes, that was the claim I was interested in.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't have to be millions; in a small enough society, it could be dozens.
True enough, though it would need to be a significant majority, not just 50%+1. An even split could be fatally divisive for the nation.
Prohibition provides an example. A significant majority of States directly and of the people through their State representatives wanted alcohol banned. Then, another significant majority of States, again of the people through their State representatives, decided prohibition was a mistake and repealed the ban.
(It's amusing to note that the 18th Amendment was ratified in January 1919, and the 20th Amendment was proposed just 6 months later....)
It's not as fast as running around actively obstructing law enforcers whether passively being in the way or violently, but it's longer lasting. And quick enough to correct mistakes or actions that are perceived to be mistakes only in the realization.
Eric Hines
Under your standard Grim, I have a hard time seeing how most laws are legitimate then. I suppose you'd think that's right and a good thing though. I tend to think we need some semblance of order. C'est la vie.
ReplyDeleteC’est la guerre. Life is war; I’m trying to figure out how to fight it decently. Chivalrously; honorably.
DeleteTouche'
DeleteBye.
ReplyDeleteDon’t let the door, &c.
DeleteA man ought to speak the truth as he sees it. Nobody has to like it, and everyone is welcome to leave.
It seems reasonable that laws, presumably carefully and properly considered, and put into effect at the federal level, should be enforced by the appropriate authorities. If change is desired or required, it seems that the appropriate level of action would be at the legislative level, rather than going for an i sugency. While I have sympathy for those resisting unjust laws, violence and obstruction don't seem to be winning strategies. If the law is wrong, change the law. Concentrating efforts there seems more appropriate. See the pro-life movement.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I can tell, this isn't even a question about the law -- although you raise a reasonable point worthy of consideration. However, it's not clear that anyone in this action was breaking any law -- not the protester originally pepper-sprayed, not the victim of the shooting, and the police we are told are immune from prosecution.
DeleteIn my view the Democrats have had multiple instances where they could have changed immigration law to enable illegal aliens to apply for citizenship/legal residency or immigrate through an open intake process. We've seen a number of controversial bills on other subjects be enacted into law over the last two Democrat administrations. It seems to me that what the Democrats chose to do instead, likely because they know that illegal immigrant amnesty and opening the floodgates for Third World migrants are the 20 percent side of the issue, is steadily modify asylum laws via sub rosa legislation, lawfare, and executive order. This produced the situation we saw under Biden where the massive influx of migrants was entirely due to executive (in)action, and ended under Trump in the same way. The Democrats know that their position is still the 20 percent side of the issue which is why they claim to be opposing the way the law is enforced but won't talk about changing the law itself.
DeleteTo your point, violently resisting arrest is a felony. While not sympathetic to the ICE point of view, I can see how someone violently resisting arrest, noted to have a firearm, might well be seen as an escalation on the threat matrix. Did he deserve to die? Almost certainly not. Did he make a series of spectacularly bad decisions that ended with his death? Well, based on evidence, yes. I'm not trying to have a fight here, just saying that he could, in resisting arrest, and being armed, he could be seen, rightly or wrongly, as a lethal threat. Would I have put him down? Hard to say. If I saw him as a lethal threat, absolutely. Is that the right choice? Nobody knows. "Don't take your guns to town Bill, leave your guns at home."
ReplyDelete"Don't take your guns to town Bill, leave your guns at home."
DeleteNah. Take your guns to town. Take them to the protest. But know that when you're in the middle of an obstruction--not a protest--and when you're interfering with the arrest of someone else and so facing arrest yourself, resisting that and in the course of that, resisting being disarmed, you're being stupid and unnecessarily escalating an already dangerous situation.
Being legally right and being smart ain't exactly always similar.
Eric Hines
Good Johnny Cash reference, though. He had several songs about the dangers of firearms; we should keep them in mind. I mostly don’t carry a gun, though I am licensed to do so. Like Conan’s father taught in the 1982 movie, I trust steel.
DeleteAlso, just because it’s important, he didn’t resist being disarmed. As far as we can tell he let them take the gun. Then they shot him ten times.
DeleteThe witness reports I've seen--not widely carried in the press--have him resisting.
ReplyDeleteEric Hines
Video now verified by multiple sources shows an individual highly likely to be Petti vandalizing an ICE vehicle and verbally accosting ICE agents roughly 10 days before the shooting. This is also consistent with the claim he was previously tackled and injured by ICE or BCP personnel but released without further action. Not definitive to his actions at the time of the shooting but it would seem to indicate a mindset of confrontation towards ICE/BCP.
DeleteThere is also speculation that the pistol ND'd....apparently that's a feature of the Sig in question. IF true, the officer reacted exactly as he was trained: fire until the threat is neutralized.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, Mr Pretti (whose actual bio is not just 'traffic tickets' and whose father openly questions the company he was keeping for the last few months) should NEVER have bull-rushed the ICE agents.
Further, this 'bunch' of people who apparently do not like ICE enforcing duly enacted laws is largely the same bunch of people who did not like the death of St George Floyd, nor--in a practice run--the actions of Mr. Zimmerman in FL, nor Kyle here in Kenosha.
Seems that they just have trouble with ANY 'law' or principle that is derived from Right Order. That means they are by no means a 'majority;' more likely they are a distinct and red-hued tiny minority.
(BTW, 'minorities' are near-invisible in these "people's protests." Odd, that.)
What the government at all levels ought to take time to consider is how deeply the sovereign citizenry is rejecting this in at least some localities.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that "deeply" here means via physical interference and obstruction, violence against infrastructure, law-breaking, and violations of other people's civil rights. I am not convinced that those actions mean the people opposing the detaining of illegal aliens feel more strongly than those of us who deeply rejected the mass importation of those illegal aliens in the first place.
It is hard to measure the strength of feelings; and I'm not sure that feelings are all that important anyway.
DeletePrinciples are, but if anything this like many other incidents has underlined how little we still share principles nationally. Something has to be done about that, but so far there's no model for what might be done that would be broadly acceptable.
Remove "feel" and replace with:
ReplyDeleteI am not convinced that those actions mean the sovereign citizenry is rejecting the detention of illegal aliens any more deeply than those of us who rejected the mass importation of those illegal aliens in the first place.
Your argument seems to be that the "outside the lines" behavior being exhibited by anti-ICE factions in MN should produce soul-searching while the peaceful behavior of anti-illegal-alien protesters should not. Perhaps I am misreading you.
I don’t care if anyone searches their soul. I do want the government to respect 2A rights even if it’s scary and inconvenient.
DeleteI also would like a consideration of whether or not we really are still one polity, or not. I frankly think not. That can be resolved amicably or by force; if true, I’d prefer amicably.
"I also would like a consideration of whether or not we really are still one polity, or not. I frankly think not. That can be resolved amicably or by force;"
ReplyDeleteNo, we are not. We are two separate groups with irreconcilable differences, inhabiting the same land. No amicable solution is possible.
Video now verified by multiple sources shows an individual highly likely to be Petti vandalizing an ICE vehicle and verbally accosting ICE agents roughly 10 days before the shooting.
ReplyDelete[Aside: I really wish Google's blog software would date/time stamp comments rather than just time stamping. That would make following threads and subthreads so much easier.]
Back to my main comment. Those allegedly verified videos are convenient to my view of things in Minneapolis, but I still ask: verified by whom? Do the videos include all of the surrounding context, or are they...excerpts...produced by whom, given to whom for publication? Why can't we see the videos for ourselves?
I've seen written reports purporting the same thing, and a couple that assert flatly that the individual was Pretti and that he got a broken rib in the process, but that doesn't add much credibility to the claims.
Eric Hines