Too much ice

#451
#451
n_huffhines said:
I said "legalize immigration" and you said I was extreme and wouldn't explain why. I didn't explicitly say legal immigrants are awesome. But that is the point. If legal immigrants are incarcerated at 1/5 the rate of Americans, I would say that's an indication that they are pretty awesome.

I understand your point about incarceration rates being different than crime rates because of how illegals are treated, but we don't have omniscient data on crime rates. All we have is the data that we have. It's not perfect. It's fine for you to point this out. But that's not what you did. The suspicion that the data is slanted is valid. But you are saying that it is slanted to favor illegals. But you don't actually know which way or by how much the data is biased. You're just guessing.
Click to expand...
guessing based on real world examples, and a law that was passed. the real world example went to jail, the slant I am referring to has been proven in a court of law. since you are being pedantic, the slanted data hasn't been proven in court, but the flaw I am pointing out has been established in court. yeah in the absolute of truly omniscient data I am guessing; but its a far more educated and supported guess than you have.

if you are going back to legalize immigration, that is yet again different than what you were just arguing. I for one don't need immigrants to be amazing to want them in this country, maybe that appeases the MAGA ones where we only accept nobel prize winners and miss universe contestants. but for most they just want the common decency of "not cutting the line". Most people aren't going to take exception to making the line shorter/faster. but that is not what is ever discussed.

if you want to discuss making it easier, do that. don't go off on branches about crime, or some various individual who has a good case to be here but hasn't done it legally. just discuss the changes you want to see. and it can't just be the run-around of "decriminalizing" illegal immigration. we just end up back here, with Trump.
 
#456
#456
jvol1 said:
www.usatoday.com

US citizens seek millions in damages after violent ICE arrests

A 79-year-old California car wash owner and a US citizen are among those seeking millions from the government after agents tackled him to the ground.
www.usatoday.com
Click to expand...
I agree, if a US Citizen is wrongfully arrested that there should be a payday involved. However, the old guy in this video appears to be interfering with ICE procedures, especially outside the business. The hallway incident appears to be over the top, BUT, from that angle, we don't get to hear what is being said or what preceded that shove.
 
#457
#457
jvol1 said:
abcnews.go.com

US-born citizen sues after twice being arrested by immigration agents

Leonardo Garcia Venegas, a U.S.-born citizen who was twice arrested by immigration authorities, has filed a lawsuit claiming that he was improperly detained.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
Click to expand...

If his version of the story is true I hope he gets paid big $$.

If this version of the story is true, he's lucky he isn't facing charges.

A statement released by DHS said that during a targeted worksite operation, "Garcia Venegas attempted to obstruct and prevent the lawful arrest of an illegal alien."

"He physically got in between agents and the subject they were attempting to arrest and refused to comply with numerous verbal commands," the statement said. "Anyone who actively obstructs law enforcement in the performance of their sworn duties, including U.S. citizens, will of course face consequences which include arrest."
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85, UT_Dutchman and malinoisvol
#459
#459
Who doesn't like their tax money going to settle wrongful arrest suits because ICE is being allowed to rape the Constitution?

abcnews.go.com

US-born citizen sues after twice being arrested by immigration agents

Leonardo Garcia Venegas, a U.S.-born citizen who was twice arrested by immigration authorities, has filed a lawsuit claiming that he was improperly detained.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#460
#460
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, CagleMtnVol, UT_Dutchman and 2 others
#463
#463
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#464
#464
Killed a guy and lied about it. ICE publicly said it was because he "seriously injured" their officer, of course not on camera. The "injured" ICE agent describing his injuries to the cops? "Nothing major." Good reason to kill a guy

www.nbcnews.com

Bodycam videos show ICE agents’ initial reactions to fatal Chicago shooting

Video from local police who first responded to the scene provides crucial context, since the immigration agents weren't wearing body cameras.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
 
#465
#465
NashVol11 said:
Killed a guy and lied about it. ICE publicly said it was because he "seriously injured" their officer, of course not on camera. The "injured" ICE agent describing his injuries to the cops? "Nothing major." Good reason to kill a guy

www.nbcnews.com

Bodycam videos show ICE agents’ initial reactions to fatal Chicago shooting

Video from local police who first responded to the scene provides crucial context, since the immigration agents weren't wearing body cameras.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
What did they lie about specifically? Any sane person reading that article would conclude the reasoning behind the officer discharging his weapon was due to the subject attempting to flee with the officer still partially inside.

Nowhere in that article did I see the justification for the shooting being he seriously hurt an officer........ That statement in and of itself sounds ludicrous.

The most disingenuous statement I found from ICE in that article was officials claiming he was in serious condition. Did you attribute the justification to iCE or did I miss it in that article?
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#466
#466
KB5252 said:
What did they lie about specifically? Any sane person reading that article would conclude the reasoning behind the officer discharging his weapon was due to the subject attempting to flee with the officer still partially inside.

Nowhere in that article did I see the justification for the shooting being he seriously hurt an officer........ That statement in and of itself sounds ludicrous.

The most disingenuous statement I found from ICE in that article was officials claiming he was in serious condition. Did you attribute the justification to iCE or did I miss it in that article?
Click to expand...
The second paragraph of the article links to the DHS statement saying that

 
#467
#467
NashVol11 said:
The second paragraph of the article links to the DHS statement saying that

Click to expand...
The second paragraph states the reason he discharged his weapon see below

ICE officers conducted a vehicle stop to arrest Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez. He refused to follow law enforcement officers' commands and drove his car at law enforcement officers. One of the ICE officers was hit by the car and dragged a significant distance. Fearing for his own life and broader public safety, the officer fired his weapon. The officer followed his training, used appropriate force, and properly enforced the law to protect the public and law enforcement.

That's a far cry from "shot because he caused an officer serious injury"
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary, UT_Dutchman and theFallGuy
#468
#468
KB5252 said:
The second paragraph states the reason he discharged his weapon see below

ICE officers conducted a vehicle stop to arrest Silverio Villegas-Gonzalez. He refused to follow law enforcement officers' commands and drove his car at law enforcement officers. One of the ICE officers was hit by the car and dragged a significant distance. Fearing for his own life and broader public safety, the officer fired his weapon. The officer followed his training, used appropriate force, and properly enforced the law to protect the public and law enforcement.

That's a far cry from "shot because he caused an officer serious injury"
Click to expand...
Goalposts all over the place. You said they didn't claim he was "seriously injured," I showed you they did, now you're pivoting to take DHS at face value when they got caught lying about "serious injury" IN THE SAME STATEMENT. Can't make it up
 
#469
#469
NashVol11 said:
Goalposts all over the place. You said they didn't claim he was "seriously injured," I showed you they did, now you're pivoting to take DHS at face value when they got caught lying about "serious injury" IN THE SAME STATEMENT. Can't make it up
Click to expand...
No I took issue from the very beginning with your summary of (they killed him because he seriously injured an agent..... Then you downplayed his injuries)

The injuries were never why he was killed as you stated. He was killed because he hit and or drug an ice agent.

i thought it was very clear I took issue with your summary of why he was killed. Should have been anyway.



Edit to add:

Basically what you did was say they killed him because he seriously injured an ice agent..... But it turns out he wasnt even seriously injured.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and whodeycin85
#472
#472
KB5252 said:
No I took issue from the very beginning with your summary of (they killed him because he seriously injured an agent..... Then you downplayed his injuries)

The injuries were never why he was killed as you stated. He was killed because he hit and or drug an ice agent.
Click to expand...
According to the org who has every reason to lie about it and is in fact currently caught in a lie about it. Fleeing the authorities isn't a good reason to kill someone either
 
#474
#474
NashVol11 said:
According to the org who has every reason to lie about it and is in fact currently caught in a lie about it. Fleeing the authorities isn't a good reason to kill someone either
Click to expand...
If you are struck and or drug is that a good reason?

Are his injuries consistent with the story?

I've seen no reason to disbelieve his story as even the eyewitnesses stories seem to line up.

Sounds like the only one who's info is really in question is someone in charge of media. If that's your justification for disbelief it's thin as a strippers undergarments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#475
#475
KB5252 said:
If you are struck and or drug is that a good reason?

Are his injuries consistent with the story?

I've seen no reason to disbelieve his story as even the eyewitnesses stories seem to line up.

Sounds like the only one who's info is really in question is someone in charge of media. If that's your justification for disbelief it's thin as a strippers undergarments.
Click to expand...
"Struck and or drug" doesn't seem very true either, and no. Shoot the tires, not the driver. There are a million ways to stop a fleeing vehicle

 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top