@VoxelVexillologist's banner p

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

				

User ID: 64

VoxelVexillologist

Multidimensional Radical Centrist

1 follower   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 18:24:54 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 64

AFAIK there are relatively few "journalism"-specific 1A protections, in part because journalism is a bit nebulous around the edges. There is a bit of a tradition of police leaving journalists alone, but a "press" vest doesn't actually impart specific legal protections against, say, lawful disperse orders. If there were, we'd have to decide who qualified: "yes officer, I'm just here because I might blog about it in the next month."

Religion is also a bit nebulously defined, but a church is a pretty central example and there is a long tradition of special protections there.

I don't remember this happening, but it's quite possible I just missed it at the time. Do you have any worthwhile links to share?

A good fraction of the '60s civil rights infrastructure was oriented at states refusing to protect certain classes of citizens.

It might make sense to make disorderly conduct in sufficient scale and coordination to be a federal felony.

I'm certain that at least some of the Internet packets used to coordinate the event (or live stream it) crossed state lines. IIRC that's been a federal jurisdiction hook before.

Somehow I assumed this was a Death Wish reference, and I was rather confused.

"assault me motherfucker!"

Humorously, this has me wondering if there is any jurisprudence in this regard: "The suspect asked to be assaulted. Like literally, we have it on the badge cameras."

I assume standards of professionalism disallow use of force in this circumstance (absent other details)?

If it misfired and people reacted off that I think there's sufficient argument for it being a reasonable shoot

IMO it's still bad because they managed to shoot someone who wasn't shooting at them. Maybe a bit understandable to hastily assume Pretti was the one who fired, but still tragic. If the shot had come from elsewhere (another protester? A cop justifiably shooting a different protester nearby? A firework?), I'm uncomfortable generally excusing the death of any nearby suspects being apprehended.

Although with what I know today, I maybe wouldn't fault a jury for declining to convict in this situation.

Still, aesthetics that conjure images of 1930s Germany are to be avoided (that means you Greg).

I can squint and see where the comparisons are coming from, but Bovino's coat looks much more like an M1939 US Army wool overcoat (link is to reproduction) than any German historical examples I can find, which seem to all have different lapels and mostly aren't olive green. And WWII US army issue kit is as definitionally anti-fascist as you can get. This page has a picture of Japanese-American troops in the highly-decorated 442nd wearing these coats.

I don't think I can construct a coherent reason to carry while protesting that takes the premises seriously that doesn't involve an active intent to use it aggressively.

For some definition of "protesting", the Bundy standoffs might qualify as examples here (not endorsing, just observing): as far as I'm aware, the guns were never fired (although perhaps pointed aggressively), and it was quite plausibly IMO part of the fed's decisions to stand down there, rather than repeat Waco or Ruby Ridge.

grainy bus video of a Russian woman

If you mean Iryna Zarutska, she was a Ukrainian refugee of the Russian invasion, and it was a light rail line, not a bus.

Gold/Silver -The discovery of a large new lode made available through new tech.

Eventually (and I'm not going to hold my breath) the asteroid mining folks seem likely to strike it rich.

Fair. His (citizen) father's killing was ordered extrajudicially. The son was a bystander in a separate ordered extrajudicial killing.

I know people on the right who fit into (1) pretty well too: "We're fine with immigrants, but we should enforce the laws as written because that's the process. Those laws could maybe be improved (exact direction unclear), but distributed decisions to not enforce laws is not the way to change them." Those folks are generally pretty positive about legal immigrants and naturalization, although maybe there's some skepticism of specific programs (H1-B).

if a future liberal administration massively expanded the ATF and descended on Jacksonville

This sounds a lot like what the ATF was up to in the 90s. Ruby Ridge and Waco really did prompt some effective red tribe organization: on the bad side McVeigh and Nichols, and less-violently a bunch of grassroots interest in gun rights that has been pretty politically effective, like the defeat of renewing the assault weapons ban, constitutional open carry in several states, and all-time highs in gun sales. The political weight of the NRA (and adjacent organizations) in the last couple decades is exactly what "effective organization" should look like.

imagine having to work with whistles like that all the time

IMO "subjecting federal agents to noise likely to cause long-term hearing damage" (impossible to tell from the videos, but quite believable) probably shouldn't be allowed. Having them don hearing protection and ignore people talking to them seems the worse option there.

He also ordered the extrajudicial killing of a teenage American citizen.

My mind keeps comparing it to accounts of melee infantry battles of antiquity: both sides have lined up and squared off, but mostly they just yell and taunt back and forth from outside of arms reach until someone is stupid enough to actually step forward. In this case, there's the added meta oddity that both sides would claim that they're not there for battle, although their formations suggest otherwise.

Are the businesses hiring illegal immigrants ones that have C-suites? I would have guessed the majority are employed by small firms (potentially contracting for larger ones) as, if nothing else, plausible deniability. And I think quite a few work in cash --- residential construction, yard work, and housekeeping. Are there significant numbers in formal office jobs with tax paperwork?

This feels a lot like cope, but at least "was this gun discharged" is something that forensics can probably answer definitively.

On the other hand, even if it were, it's still unclear to me that it's still justifiable, if at least a bit understandable: surely police aren't justified in shooting someone on the ground being arrested just because a loud noise happened nearby (actual gunshots elsewhere, fireworks, cars backfiring). I do think intentionally making such noises in these sorts of situations is just asking for trouble (I recall saying that fireworks shot at police during the 2020 protests/riots were grossly negligent), but I wouldn't condone immediate "return" fire.

But I'm also of the opinion that permanent-hearing-damage levels of intentional noisemaking (all the whistles going on, among other things) should probably be considered "assault" (otherwise I'll start working on a "194dB Free Speech Canon"), and I'd much prefer everyone take a couple of deep breaths and discuss things civilly.

Would a straight quid pro quo tying state/local law enforcement cooperation with federal funding to those agencies run afoul of that? We manage to tie highway funding to highway drunk driving laws.

Alternatively, mandatory E-Verify, but the lack of interest there hints in a deep unseriousness about the issue overall.

the idea of admin higher-ups who think that creating a scene like that is necessary to intimidate would-be illegals and deter illegal immigration.

Don't border crossing numbers suggest that they've basically already done this even before the current drama?

The most strategic thing Trump could do would be to get the ring leaders locked up.

IMO it'd be to push Congress for a bill to mandate a minimal level of local/state cooperation with federal immigration authorities in exchange for federal funding eligibility, and in return offering a stand down of current operations. I don't see another real offramp available to the right, here: they can't practically expect to focus so exclusively on Minnesota indefinitely.

What other practical political goal are they trying to achieve while they're there burning political capital like The Joker burns piles of cash?