Too much ice

#9,754
#9,754
NorthDallas40 said:
SIAP the two agents involved in the shooting who were at first moved out of MN and put on administrative duty have now been put on administrative leave. So they are not on the job at all right now.

www.nbcnews.com

Minneapolis live updates: 2 Border Patrol agents who fired guns in Alex Pretti fatal shooting put on leave

Follow live updates on a preliminary Department of Homeland Security report sent to Congress on Alex Prettiā€™s fatal shooting in Minnesota that said two officers fired their guns during the struggle.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
Wonder why only 2 fired their weapons if this was such a life or death scenario
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11, EasternVol and DuckInAPen
#9,755
#9,755
NorthDallas40 said:
SIAP the two agents involved in the shooting who were at first moved out of MN and put on administrative duty have now been put on administrative leave. So they are not on the job at all right now.

www.nbcnews.com

Minneapolis live updates: 2 Border Patrol agents who fired guns in Alex Pretti fatal shooting put on leave

Follow live updates on a preliminary Department of Homeland Security report sent to Congress on Alex Prettiā€™s fatal shooting in Minnesota that said two officers fired their guns during the struggle.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
Click to expand...
Another step under the bus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and NorthDallas40
#9,756
#9,756
LibertyVol said:
Interesting. I will have to listen to it. Almost like the government has set us up. ā€œShow me the man and I will show you the crimeā€
Click to expand...
I donā€™t think itā€™s implying full on Lavrentiy Beria level of misconduct I think itā€™s more along the lines that the criminal code is overtly complicated and the average US citizen is doomed to navigate it cleanly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and GroverCleveland
#9,757
#9,757
utvolpj said:
Wonder why only 2 fired their weapons if this was such a life or death scenario
Click to expand...
It was 2 too many but I hear you.

This is what should have happened on day 1 but it didnā€™t and I donā€™t think the Goode shooter was formally put on leave either. More incompetent clownish behavior of DHS leadership.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and Smokey123
#9,759
#9,759
Smokey123 said:
Youā€™re the one who claimed they did, the burden of proof is on you. If thereā€™s not a statue that says they do then what does that mean?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your logic. They are federal law enforcement. It would seem that they get the same authorities over their operational scenes as other law enforcement, unless you show me otherwise. And that's not even considering whether it was ICE or DHS/HSI.

Smokey123 said:
Funny youā€™re using AI now when itā€™s convenient but earlier when I used it for a summary of a scotus ruling that was wrong
Click to expand...
I didn't say it was wrong. I said that it was self-referentially incomplete. Likewise, it's funny now that you were using AI then when it was... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Like I said, it'll take more than your hand waving to convince me otherwise when I've taken the time to (alert! Appeal to Authority!) hear what experts on the matter say, and then when my superficial searches seem to contradict your hand-waving. If you find a statute that states that ICE/DHS do not get the same authorities over their operational scenes as other Law Enforcement, I'll listen, research it, and amend my opinion.

Otherwise, I'll invite you to find the next group of squad cars that are arresting some stranger, roll up on their shoulders, scream in their ears, and repeatedly ignore their orders to back off. If that doesn't give you enough excitement, do it armed.

Test your theories, hombre.
 
Last edited:
#9,761
#9,761
Smokey123 said:
But since AI is fine to use now here ya go.



1. ICEā€™s Authority Comes From Specific Federal Statutes


The primary federal statute that defines what ICE officers are empowered to do is 8 U.S.C. Ā§ 1357, which grants immigration officers authority to:
  • Interrogate someone believed to be an alien about their status.
  • Arrest people believed to be violating immigration law under narrowly defined circumstances (e.g., probable cause to believe someone is in the country illegally and may escape before a warrant can be obtained).
What this statute does not do:

āŒ It does not give ICE the power to control public movement, manage crowds, or clear pedestrians generally.

ICEā€™s federal authority is tied to immigration enforcement tasks, not broad public order functions.

šŸ“Œ 2. Federal Law Does Not
Grant ICE Police-Type Power Over Public Spaces
Unlike state and local police ā€” who are given police power by state law to regulate behavior, enforce order, and control traffic or crowds ā€” ICE has no such ā€œpolice power.ā€ Under U.S. constitutional law, general public order authority belongs primarily to state and local governments under the Tenth Amendment. Federal agencies like ICE have limited law-enforcement powers that must be grounded in specific statute.


Federal immigration statutes do not include a provision that allows ICE to:
  • Issue general ā€œmove alongā€ orders to bystanders
  • Clear pedestrians from public streets
  • Disperse crowds in the absence of an immediate safety threat tied to their enforcement activity




There is no clause in 8 U.S.C. Ā§ 1357 or similar federal law authorizing ICE to perform these functions.

šŸ“Œ 3. ICE Must Still Comply With Constitutional Limits

Even though ICE has authority to arrest people under federal immigration law:
  • Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures still apply in public spaces. Federal agents must have reasonable suspicion or probable cause depending on the level of interaction.
  • ICE cannot just detain or command movement of random pedestrians without a legitimate, lawful enforcement reason and constitutional basis.
This is the same constitutional standard that applies to state/local police.

šŸ“Œ 4. ICEā€™s Legal Limits Are Recognized by Legal Analysts
Legal overviews confirm that:
  • ICE does not have general police authority like local police do.
  • Its powers are limited to what federal statutes and the Constitution expressly authorize.
Nothing in the statutory framework grants ICE free-form authority to clear people from public roads or order someone to move simply because they are present in a public space.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Looks like I have some research to do. There seems to be a conflict of AI responses. What search query did you use for that?

Edited: Does that state that they do not have the authority to clear their immediate area of operations? I'm not saying that they have the right to clear entire streets and city blocks as general crowd control. I'm saying that they were clearing their immediate area of operations, which seems to be wh=ithin their sphere of authority.
 
#9,762
#9,762
Smokey123 said:
ICE Can legally do:

Arrest persons suspected of immigration violations under specific statutory criteria.

āœ”ļø Question or briefly detain someone with reasonable suspicion of a violation.
āœ”ļø Arrest or detain anyone ā€” including U.S. citizens ā€” who actively obstructs or interferes with their lawful duties (under separate criminal statutes such as obstruction of federal officers).

ICE Cannot legally do:

āŒ Issue general ā€œmove backā€ or ā€œclear this areaā€ orders to pedestrians simply for being present.
āŒ Manage or clear public streets or crowds as a matter of general authority.


āŒ Use immigration statutes as a basis for broad crowd control in the way municipal police might under state law.
Click to expand...
1769639592188.png
 
#9,764
#9,764
Orange_Crush said:
I disagree with your logic. They are federal law enforcement. It would seem that they get the same authorities over their operational scenes as other law enforcement, unless you show me otherwise. And that's not even considering whether it was ICE or HLS/HSI.


I didn't say it was wrong. I said that it was self-referentially incomplete. Likewise, it's funny now that you were using AI then when it was... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Like I said, it'll take more than your hand waving to convince me otherwise when I've taken the time to (alert! Appeal to Authority!) hear what experts on the matter say, and then when my superficial searches seem to contradict your hand-waving. If you find a statute that states that ICE/DHS do not get the same authorities over their operational scenes as other Law Enforcement, I'll listen, research it, and amend my opinion.

Otherwise, I'll invite you to find the next group of squad cars that are arresting some stranger, roll up on their shoulders, scream in their ears, and repeatedly ignore their orders to back off. If that doesn't give you enough excitement, do it armed.

Test your theories, hombre.
Click to expand...
Itā€™s not my logic itā€™s the law. Agencies are granted certain authority. Which is why itā€™s important to show if they were impeding an arrest because then yes they would have authority to detain them. Simply being in the street with a whistle does not mean theyā€™re impeding. Which again courts have ruled is legal
Orange_Crush said:
Thank you. Looks like I have some research to do. There seems to be a conflict of AI responses. What search query did you use for that?
Click to expand...
ChatGPT. Make sure to ask it for actual laws and statues and theyā€™ll link them
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#9,766
#9,766
Smokey123 said:
Itā€™s not my logic itā€™s the law. Agencies are granted certain authority. Which is why itā€™s important to show if they were impeding an arrest because then yes they would have authority to detain them. Simply being in the street with a whistle does not mean theyā€™re impeding. Which again courts have ruled is legal
Click to expand...

I do not believe the courts have ruled that people can walk right up on agents who are trying to perform their duties. That's my point. There is one thing to stand yards away screaming and cursing them. It's another to walk up within a couple of feet of them. That's an amazing way to get LEOs stabbed in the back or bashed in the back of the skull.

Smokey123 said:
ChatGPT. Make sure to ask it for actual laws and statues and theyā€™ll link them
Click to expand...
See my edit. I am not saying that they have authority of general crowd control. That's why the NG guard was brought in for that. I am saying that they have the authority to clear their immediate area of operations, similar to a police officer telling a passenger to get back in the car while they are dealing with the driver, or officers telling you to back of if you walk up on them while they are trying to arrest someone. And that's what the agents seemed to have been doing in this case. They were not dispersing the crowd. They were removing specific individuals from the imediate vicinity of their operations.

Your AI quotes, as full and complete as they were (no sarcasm) did not state that they cannot clear the area of their operations.
 
#9,769
#9,769
Orange_Crush said:
In what context? I missed that and am interested.
Click to expand...
It authorizes what their scope is. It also delineates what their scope isn't. But I didn't see anything limiting their scope when a serious crime is witnessed. Our discussion was about car theft. But I think it is more clear when we talk about crimes bringing harm to people rather than property crimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top