Mostly this activist action against ICE is to distract the conversation from the electoral kryptonite of the MN welfare fraud scandal (and other states)

They know the attention span of the public is short and they need a narrative they can spin against the Republicans in the mid terms

This is a calculated planned funded political operation, a theater level action.

ICE has a legitimate function. They are not operating like this in red states because red states cooperate with the feds. If MN went back to cooperating, this type of activity wouldn't be necessary.

Just because some radical Soros funded organizations are purposefully causing riots (or insurrections?) that are getting people killed, that doesn't mean law enforcement should cease. My kids throw temper tantrums occasionally. If my kids organize and throw a temper tantrum together, that doesn't mean I'm going to suddenly stop enforcing the rules as a parent.

Give into that behavior as a parent or as a country and the only thing you can expect is that same tactic anytime they want something.

9 hours ago, uhhello said:

I think disarming you with no reason is the opposite of everyones safety and not legal.

12 hours ago, FourFans said:

I'd fully expecting to be disarmed and possibly restrained depending on the situation

TL/DR: It depends entirely on the situation, but regardless I'm ready to be disarmed by a LEO. I'll fight it in court, not in the moment.

It's about managing my own expectations and it all boils down to the officer and his/her assessment of the situation. If I talk to the sheriff in church as I walk by, I'm fine. She knows I'm armed. If I am the first responder who engages an active shooter in that same church, I fully expect that same sheriff to disarm me afterwards. A: the situation is over and shootings result in frayed nerves and shaking hands. B: evidence. The reason doesn't matter, I've decided before it all happens that I'm submitting to the proper authority.

If the officer deems according policy/judgment that disarming me is advisable, I'm not resisting in the slightest. It might be a complete BS reason. There also might be a factor I don't know about. If I feel like my rights are getting trampled, that specific moment is NOT the time to take a stand. I must give the officer the benefit of the doubt. The officer is not required to reciprocate. In fact, the officer literally stays alive by NOT automatically giving people the benefit of the doubt.

If it was wrong and/or illegal, we can figure that out in court...later...when loaded weapons aren't in play. I'm also of the opinion and experience that simply acting as described above will relieve any tension and most likely the officer will not escalate to disarming me. It's about expectations. If I act like I am superior with better legal knowledge than this officer, they can smell it, it's a red flag for them, and it does nothing to help the situation, regardless of how right I am.

To use an analogy: I treat every police officer the same way I treat the range safety officer I've never met: With absolute deference to the authority they hold in that moment. Yes, some that suck. Most don't. But every single one should be treated with respect. If they prove undeserving, I bring it up with management later, not on the range.

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by FourFans

Aggressive ICE ops wouldn't be necessary if the Republicans in Congress would get off their asses and pass some laws that a) dramatically increased the penalties for employing illegals (i.e. seizure of business, heavy jail time, etc.), b) 50% tax on remittances, ban on illegals receiving any taxpayer funded assistance, c) bill their home countries for their education and medical care costs incurred in the US (and trade embargoes on those who don't pay up), and d) remove counting illegals in the Census for Congressional apportionment (which is why the Dems are fighting so hard to keep them here, plus the kickbacks and grift). Most would self-deport were these policies enacted and aggressive ICE ops wouldn't be necessary. But the Republicans in Congress are only pretending to oppose the Dems.

1 hour ago, FourFans said:

TL/DR: It depends entirely on the situation, but regardless I'm ready to be disarmed by a LEO. I'll fight it in court, not in the moment.

It's about managing my own expectations and it all boils down to the officer and his/her assessment of the situation. If I talk to the sheriff in church as I walk by, I'm fine. She knows I'm armed. If I am the first responder who engages an active shooter in that same church, I fully expect that same sheriff to disarm me afterwards. A: the situation is over and shootings result in frayed nerves and shaking hands. B: evidence. The reason doesn't matter, I've decided before it all happens that I'm submitting to the proper authority.

If the officer deems according policy/judgment that disarming me is advisable, I'm not resisting in the slightest. It might be a complete BS reason. There also might be a factor I don't know about. If I feel like my rights are getting trampled, that specific moment is NOT the time to take a stand. I must give the officer the benefit of the doubt. The officer is not required to reciprocate. In fact, the officer literally stays alive by NOT automatically giving people the benefit of the doubt.

If it was wrong and/or illegal, we can figure that out in court...later...when loaded weapons aren't in play. I'm also of the opinion and experience that simply acting as described above will relieve any tension and most likely the officer will not escalate to disarming me. It's about expectations. If I act like I am superior with better legal knowledge than this officer, they can smell it, it's a red flag for them, and it does nothing to help the situation, regardless of how right I am.

To use an analogy: I treat every police officer the same way I treat the range safety officer I've never met: With absolute deference to the authority they hold in that moment. Yes, some that suck. Most don't. But every single one should be treated with respect. If they prove undeserving, I bring it up with management later, not on the range.

Nobody said anything about being aggressive. I've seen MANY an instance where the mere mention of a firearm brings out the stupid in cops. I've also seen many a situation that was handled like a champ by the po po. "don't show me yours and I won't show you mine". I'm not offering anything up that isn't pertinent to the situation or required by law. Lastly, I don't want the dumb fuck shooting me in the dick when 'disarming' me.

2 hours ago, uhhello said:

I've seen MANY an instance where the mere mention of a firearm brings out the stupid in cops.

Excluding what you've seen online, how many, specifically, is "MANY"?

I'm encountering and increasing number of individuals (specifically boomers and older x'ers) who conflate what they see online with "personal experience" and deriving personal beliefs and stereotypes that are actually based on exceptions and AI generated clickbate. The repository of stupid that's recorded online represents a tiny fraction of the law enforcement encounters. I try very hard to base my opinions on factual reality, not the exceptional cases that get lots of attention.

I've been carrying in some form or fashion for 20 years now. I've had roughly 20 experiences with law enforcement of international, federal, state, local, civilian and military varieties that included detentions, warnings, breaking up civil disputes, traffic stops etc. Day to day type events. I've personally witnessed all of zero events where a police officer handled a situation poorly enough to call it "stupid".
Overly cautious? Yes. Decisions I disagreed with? Yes. Stupid? No.

So I'm curious to hear about these stories you have that resulted in your readiness to call a random police officer a "dumb fuck" by reflex, as you just did. Please elaborate for us if you will.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by FourFans

I have not seen the video of him being shot (dealing with some family health issues), but this popped up on my phone while waiting in the hospital. Not saying the guy deserved to die but he is not the innocent angel the left is making him out to be. A week after spitting on an officer, damaging a vehicle and having a violent interaction with an ICE officers he decides to attend another protest with a gun and extra mags.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu6vogwcLt8

When people lie as the entry point of a conversation, it's pretty difficult to take anything else that they say as serious.

So we have all of these "peaceful" protesters who are just "monitoring" law enforcement with their cell phone cameras. Yet with all this peaceful monitoring going on, I have yet to see a video of a poor illegal immigrant mother being torn from her children while at the park, or an illegal immigrant doctor being kidnapped from the surgery suite.

The closest thing I've seen are heavily edited videos that try to remove the part of the interaction where the illegal immigrant was fleeing either on foot or in a vehicle, in many cases putting the people around them at risk.

So if these peaceful protesters aren't actually monitoring anything, why are they there and why are they being encouraged to be there by politicians?

I suspect if you were to ask the protesters in a candid moment, they would admit that what they're really trying to do is just get in the way and disrupt as many deportations or incarcerations as they can, because fundamentally they believe that illegal immigrants have a right to be, well, anywhere I guess.

But I think if you were to ask the people funding and directing them, you would get an answer far more similar to what Clark and Smokin and a couple others have proposed. Distract from the Somali welfare story and de-legitimize the entire premise of immigration control with whatever or distorted accounts of police violence. Those two goals alone help a wide range of progressive policies.

As usual, no one on either side actually gives a shit about the illegal immigrants.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by Lord Ratner

9 hours ago, FourFans said:

Excluding what you've seen online, how many, specifically, is "MANY"?

I'm encountering and increasing number of individuals (specifically boomers and older x'ers) who conflate what they see online with "personal experience" and deriving personal beliefs and stereotypes that are actually based on exceptions and AI generated clickbate. The repository of stupid that's recorded online represents a tiny fraction of the law enforcement encounters. I try very hard to base my opinions on factual reality, not the exceptional cases that get lots of attention.

I've been carrying in some form or fashion for 20 years now. I've had roughly 20 experiences with law enforcement of international, federal, state, local, civilian and military varieties that included detentions, warnings, breaking up civil disputes, traffic stops etc. Day to day type events. I've personally witnessed all of zero events where a police officer handled a situation poorly enough to call it "stupid".
Overly cautious? Yes. Decisions I disagreed with? Yes. Stupid? No.

So I'm curious to hear about these stories you have that resulted in your readiness to call a random police officer a "dumb fuck" by reflex, as you just did. Please elaborate for us if you will.

Is police bodycam AI clickbait now days? I've personally never had a interaction above a speeding ticket with the po po. I agree they are a fraction of daily encounters. They are enough. Do you have to personally witness it to call it 'stupid'? Do I need to point you to the video of the 'dumb fuck' disarming a guy and shooting him in the leg? "Dumb fuck" status well earned.

15 hours ago, pbar said:

Aggressive ICE ops wouldn't be necessary if the Republicans in Congress would get off their asses and pass some laws that a) dramatically increased the penalties for employing illegals (i.e. seizure of business, heavy jail time, etc.), b) 50% tax on remittances, ban on illegals receiving any taxpayer funded assistance, c) bill their home countries for their education and medical care costs incurred in the US (and trade embargoes on those who don't pay up), and d) remove counting illegals in the Census for Congressional apportionment (which is why the Dems are fighting so hard to keep them here, plus the kickbacks and grift). Most would self-deport were these policies enacted and aggressive ICE ops wouldn't be necessary. But the Republicans in Congress are only pretending to oppose the Dems.

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

As usual, no one on either side actually gives a shit about the illegal immigrants.

Yup.

I'm not privy to what the White House has planned for illegal immigration through the rest of Trump's term. I'd like to think that this current wave of ICE enforcement is just the first step, and that the items @pbar highlighted above are coming next. But I doubt it.

My limited understanding of the matter is that there are already a lot of good laws on the books for dealing with businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants. Unfortunately, I suspect it'll be status quo. Some nibbling around the edges, and that's it. I'd love to be proven incorrect, though.

I feel sorry for the illegals who are taken advantage when they come here, but they shouldn't be here. We can't let in millions of unskilled people and expect our society to remain stable and prosperous. My wife had a friend who overstayed a tourist visa to secure work in restaurant. Her friend worked for that restaurant for a year without pay (was provided food from the restaurant and lived onsite) and when she demanded her back pay, the employer threatened to turn her into ICE (and to another employee they did the same thing to). She ended up going back to her home country without having gotten paid for a year's labor. We put her in touch with some NGOs that help illegals get their pay (illegal or not, nobody deserves to be taken advantage of like that) but none were able to help and so she went back home (she wanted to work in the US to earn money for her daughter's cancer treatment but wasn't able to find a job in her home country due to being past retirement age).

At any rate, illegal immigration and fraudulent asylum migration will continue until the incentives are removed.

24 minutes ago, pbar said:

I feel sorry for the illegals who are taken advantage when they come here, but they shouldn't be here. We can't let in millions of unskilled people and expect our society to remain stable and prosperous. My wife had a friend who overstayed a tourist visa to secure work in restaurant. Her friend worked for that restaurant for a year without pay (was provided food from the restaurant and lived onsite) and when she demanded her back pay, the employer threatened to turn her into ICE (and to another employee they did the same thing to). She ended up going back to her home country without having gotten paid for a year's labor. We put her in touch with some NGOs that help illegals get their pay (illegal or not, nobody deserves to be taken advantage of like that) but none were able to help and so she went back home (she wanted to work in the US to earn money for her daughter's cancer treatment but wasn't able to find a job in her home country due to being past retirement age).

At any rate, illegal immigration and fraudulent asylum migration will continue until the incentives are removed.

If Congress (either side) wanted to get rid of stuff like this, they would. I'm sure we could huddle up and storm up a dozen ways that make sense