Ah, that's where you're wrong. You're blaming the fact that people are upset with ICE and the Trump administration's actions on Marxists, as if they are the only ones who could possibly feel that way. It's similar to the way that conservatives always insist the protestors are only there because they're being paid. It's as if conservatives are completely incapable of accepting the fact that the policies they support face widespread opposition and are often quite unpopular. Though I suppose you'd dismiss that with cries about rigged polls or stolen elections.

America wouldn't even exist without people willing to stand up and protest against what they saw as unjust use of government force. What you're seeing now is a part of that long tradition. I don't dispute that many parts of what the government is trying to do are legal, but legal doesn't mean just or moral. Lots of awful things have been technically legal throughout human history. Does that mean everyone should have just shrugged their shoulders and went about their business because the law said it was OK?

Conservatives have always and will always be the ones most likely to cheer on the use of state sponsored violence against the nation's own citizens. It was true during the civil rights era and the Vietnam protests and for even longer than that when you look at the use of force against labor unions and others fighting for worker's rights. There will be no accountability for the officers involved, there almost never is. I expect nothing more than a note that "We investigated ourselves and determined we did nothing wrong."

Curious framing to call jury trials state sponsored violence

If the protesters are being paid then provide that proof. It's not possible to pay tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people and not leave behind huge swaths of evidence. But that just isn't the case here. People are out and protesting not because they are being paid but because they believe in the message being put out. Again, you fail to see what is obvious. People don't need to be paid to oppose ICE. Nobody is paying me to post here, for example.

The claim's about Trump's landslide win always make me laugh. His margin of victory in the popular vote was bigger than Al Gore's in 2000 but smaller than Hillary Clinton's in 2016. But you go ahead and keep calling that a landslide.

COVID wasn't a case of violence. And I'd remind you to consider who was President in 2020. On January 6 there was violence. It wasn't a case though of the government sending in forces to a situation they aren't typically in, they were there providing normal security. Most times violence occurs you see it in situations where the police are asked to do things beyond typical duties. The question I would have is if you think the violence on the side of the protesters was justified.

There are definitely organizations that exist to plan protests, no argument there. That's especially the case with ones planned well in advance. It's actually not usually hard to figure out the organizations behind any specific event as they like to put their names on them to bring more attention to them. Many even offer things like transportation to the event. I don't see anything wrong with that kind of thing even when it's done by Republicans. It's normal political activity. But the right wants to confuse that kind of thing with claims like saying the majority of protestors are being paid hundreds of dollars per day to be there. That just can't happen in large numbers without being pretty obvious. There's just too much money flowing to too many people. Where's that evidence?

Which one of us is moving the goalposts here? I'd say it's you. Not all victories are landslides, unless by your definition they are. In which case, good for you? I acknowledge Trump won in 2024. That marks twice that the Republican candidate has received more votes in a Presidential election in the last nine elections. But sure, who am I to say that just maybe Democratic policies enjoy widespread support and we're not all just being paid to say so.

1. Doxxing who? I do not believe in a masked, anonymous police force. If the state is going to entrust you with powers and authority the common person doesn't have I believe we have a right to know who you are. An anonymous police force is one that can't and won't be held accountable. On the other hand the Trump administration has put out messages indicating they'd like to make the identities and identifying information of protesters public. Isn't that doxxing? And done by the state no less.

2. I've never supported swatting nor have I heard of any high profile liberal that does.

3. If the state is going to use masked agents in plain clothes without badges driving unmarked vehicles to seize people who don't have any warrants out for their arrest and are in many cases actually United States citizens then I think they forfeit the right to be upset people are tracking what vehicles they are using.

4. The people protesting ICE do not support this, but I'm sure you know that. You people are so tiring.

5. You're just going to label any opposition "stoking the fires" or "promoting violence". I'm not going to play that game with you.

Rocag said:

---

Ah, that's where you're wrong. You're blaming the fact that people are upset with ICE and the Trump administration's actions on Marxists, as if they are the only ones who could possibly feel that way. It's similar to the way that conservatives always insist the protestors are only there because they're being paid. It's as if conservatives are completely incapable of accepting the fact that the policies they support face widespread opposition and are often quite unpopular. Though I suppose you'd dismiss that with cries about rigged polls or stolen elections.

America wouldn't even exist without people willing to stand up and protest against what they saw as unjust use of government force. What you're seeing now is a part of that long tradition. I don't dispute that many parts of what the government is trying to do are legal, but legal doesn't mean just or moral. Lots of awful things have been technically legal throughout human history. Does that mean everyone should have just shrugged their shoulders and went about their business because the law said it was OK?

Conservatives have always and will always be the ones most likely to cheer on the use of state sponsored violence against the nation's own citizens. It was true during the civil rights era and the Vietnam protests and for even longer than that when you look at the use of force against labor unions and others fighting for worker's rights. There will be no accountability for the officers involved, there almost never is. I expect nothing more than a note that "We investigated ourselves and determined we did nothing wrong."

---

You can be upset with ICE and the Trump administration without making confrontation nearly unavoidable. They've got roving units of follow cars tailing ICE, preemptively searching cars that might even look like they're associated with ICE, blowing whistles warning people when ICE is nearby, and getting in the face of ICE daring them to do something.

Why do they do this? Because they want the photos that Schmendler is sharing. They need another George Floyd moment because the last one wore off.

This is no different than an NFL player spitting in the face of an opponent, and then demanding a 15 yard penalty flag when they're pushed down.

You really don't see any reason at all there might be a different reaction when a murder is committed by a government agent versus a normal civilian? That distinction just has no value in your mind?

Quote:

---

Why do we get upset about this, and not with the hundreds of other murders in Minneapolis 88% of which are committed by minorities?

---

And isn't that a curious statement. I thought this was about immigration status. Why are you suggesting we evaluate murders committed by white people differently than those committed by minorities?

Rocag said:

---

You really don't see any reason at all there might be a different reaction when a murder is committed by a government agent versus a normal civilian? That distinction just has no value in your mind?

Quote:

---

Why do we get upset about this, and not with the hundreds of other murders in Minneapolis 88% of which are committed by minorities?

---

And isn't that a curious statement. I thought this was about immigration status. Why are you suggesting we evaluate murders committed by white people differently than those committed by minorities?

---

The distinction has literally no value in my mind. The situation this guy put himself into made it extremely likely that something bad would happen to him even if not up to the point where he lost his life.

My point is that the left makes excuse after excuse after excuse for why minorities commit so many violent crimes as compared to white people. Why aren't you making the same excuses for the ICE agents?

Why don't we examine the sociocultural forces that influence their interactions with protestors?

If you can't see why a society might need to hold the government agents who have been granted power and authority over the rest of the populace to a higher standard than some random person out on the streets then I don't think I'll ever be able to get you to understand the point I'm making.

To Silent: I'm certainly not foolish enough to say the left has never done any wrong. But in the cases of Renee Good and Alex Pretti I do believe they were both in the right and did nothing to deserve death.

Rocag said:

---

If you can't see why a society might need to hold the government agents who have been granted power and authority over the rest of the populace to a higher standard than some random person out on the streets then I don't think I'll ever be able to get you to understand the point I'm making.

To Silent: I'm certainly not foolish enough to say the left has never done any wrong. But in the cases of Renee Good and Alex Pretti I do believe they were both in the right and did nothing to deserve death.

---

You're missing the point. People are at much less of a threat from the government agent than they are from a random minority in Minneapolis. Neither Good nor Pretti, were random bystanders, they threw themselves into the situation.

Both of the people who were killed, Good and Pretti, put them in situations where they could be reasonably shot. Why aren't you examining the sociocultural environment of the situations the ICE troopers find themselves in, while trying to enforce the law in Minneapolis?

Good was most certainly not "in the right." She clearly broke multiple laws. I don't think she "deserved death" but I do think she made very poor choices that led to her death.

I don't think people who die from lung cancer "deserve" death either. Bad choices put you at risk.

Another thing that is readily apparent is the left keeps on othering these federal agents. They are your fellow Americans who are doing their job. Stay out of their way.

Protest all you want, but don't directly interfere with their operations. Why is this so complicated?

Quote:

---

People are at much less of a threat from the government agent than they are from a random minority in Minneapolis.

---

Statistically speaking, I don't think that's true. ICE started major operations in Minneapolis in December, so about two months. Reports I have seen put the number of ICE and DHS agents in Minneapolis at about 3000. There have been two people killed by ICE in those two months. That averages out to 0.004 deaths per year per agent.

According to 2024 Minneapolis Crime Statistics, I see 292 homicide offenders of whom 249 were not white (85.3%). There were 170 murders total in this time period. The population of Minneapolis is about 430,000 of whom about 40% aren't white, so 172,000 minorities. Based on that, I'd give a rough estimation of about 0.0008 deaths per minority per year.

So a person in Minneapolis would be roughly 4.5 times more likely to be killed by ICE than a minority.

Edited for rounding.

There are a couple of places in that example where the hypothetical protester does things that aren't legally allowed and should expect to face legal consequences. I just happen to think those consequences should be an arrest and not a bullet to the face.

Rocag said:

---

Quote:

---

People are at much less of a threat from the government agent than they are from a random minority in Minneapolis.

---

Statistically speaking, I don't think that's true. ICE started major operations in Minneapolis in December, so about two months. Reports I have seen put the number of ICE and DHS agents in Minneapolis at about 3000. There have been two people killed by ICE in those two months. That averages out to 0.004 deaths per year per agent.

According to 2024 Minneapolis Crime Statistics, I see 292 homicide offenders of whom 249 were not white (85.3%). There were 170 murders total in this time period. The population of Minneapolis is about 430,000 of whom about 40% aren't white, so 172,000 minorities. Based on that, I'd give a rough estimation of about 0.0008 deaths per minority per year.

So a person in Minneapolis would be roughly 4.5 times more likely to be killed by ICE than a minority.

Edited for rounding.

---

You're missing the environment in which both of the populations interact. You can be the victim of a crime anywhere, the two people who died literally dove head first into the situation and manufactured the situation that led to their demise.

Secondly, since you put the facts out there. Let's look at what you've posted. Extrapolating from 2024 numbers, since ICE began operations in Minneapolis; there have been 48 homicide offenders of which 41 were minority.

41 people have been killed by minorities in Minneapolis in the last two months, and you're screaming about two people who dove into the middle of an ICE operation with a gun, or an automobile?

Yes, that is what I am screaming about and I'll tell you why. I believe that when the people who committed those crimes are identified they will be arrested, charged, and put on trial. That's the way the legal system should work.

I don't have any faith that the Trump administration will allow any actual investigations into these two killings.

The Good killing was completely legally justified. The law is very clear on that.

This more recent one deserves an impartial investigation, unfortunately I'm not sure thats possible.

I get you don't trust the Trump administration to be impartial, but the state of Minnesota is similarly compromised in the opposite way.

Derek Chauvin did not get the benefit of impartiality.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Lets say you work in Oil and Gas and I'm an envirowacko. Should I be able to go to your place of work and blow whistles in your face? Should I be able to park my car in front of your driveway so you can't get to work? Should I be able to follow you to lunch and scream profanities in your face?

If I do all those things and you respond by punching me in the face, am I partially responsible?

---

Renee Good wasn't punched, she was shot in the face. If you do this and I call the police and they come by and shoot you in the face, are they justified?

---

If they thought they were being run over? Yes