5 ms·

> I do not understand why my comments are flagged. Entertaining the idea that they could be wrong goes against their principles.

by ratrace 8mo ago

mindslight 8mo ago
No, endlessly going around in circles responding to the same emotional (and often factually wrong) talking points is an abuse of our principles, and we're finally starting to say we've had enough of it. I'm a libertarian who actually believes in a society based around individual liberty and limited government, and doesn't just pay lip service to it. If we had a blue-flavored government, and it was performing similarly liberty-abhorrent actions on a different topic, I would be criticizing those as well. But we don't, and the current government has escalated so far beyond even the hanging-by-a-thread norms that we previously had, I think it's utterly naive to think any of this is about "immigration enforcement" in the first place.
- zahlman 8mo ago
  > endlessly going around in circles responding to the same emotional (and often factually wrong) talking points is an abuse of our principles I don't know who "our" refers to, but it certainly is an abuse of my principles. Which is exactly why I do not make emotional appeals in my comments, and stick to what I can factually verify, including with timestamps in video footage and citations of the relevant legal standards. And why I clearly argue for where others are factually wrong instead of making blanket assertions without evidence. It is my interlocutors who are making emotional appeals and claims that are not supported by the evidence, up to the point of accusing me of "lying" about video depicting things even as I clearly point to the exact points in the video that clearly depict them.
  - mindslight 8mo ago
    You made plenty of emotional appeals in your comments. You just made them as assertions of facts ("no legitimate reason", "acting belligerently towards the agents", "serious threat of death or injury"). You even went so far as to bring up the fact that she was protesting as if this indicts rather than exonerates her! I've had two prior of these threads where I went around in circles tediously refuting these types of emotional appeals, so forgive me if my patience is shot on that front. If you want to see where I am coming from rather than writing me off as one of the caricatures your media sources have told you to pigeonhole the opposition into, you can just read those threads in full: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46557993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46557993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46543786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46543786 But as I said, my only real question to you is how many more Americans need to be killed before you admit that maybe us critics have a point about the methods being used here.
    - zahlman 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - mindslight 8mo ago
        You keep conflating the strict legal question with the moral situation. I don't think there are too many people thinking that Ross has any worry about being held criminally or civilly liable, even if state isn't dissuaded from their prosecution, and even if the federal court where this inevitably gets bumped to actually deliberates impartially. There is a long history of police officers needlessly executing people and walking away. That's basically the problem, right? But if we're talking about the moral situation, what ought to be in a country based on individual liberty and limited government? Then no, law enforcement officers should not be able to use "obstruction" as a pretext to demand an arrest in response to Constitutionally-protected protest, at which point they then needlessly escalate the arrest into an armed standoff, and then when the person still doesn't comply, they kill the person due to the "danger" of the situation they themselves created. At a certain point you have to look at the realities of law enforcement agency not having a mandate or respect from the people it is working amongst. We saw how exactly corrosive this is to the rule of law with the "drug war". Can we at least agree that it would have been easy to write down Good's vehicle's license plate, other identifying information, timestamps from bodycams, etc, deescalate the situation by ICE simply leaving, and then follow up later either with a federal arrest (FBI) or local PD?
        zahlman 8mo ago
        > You keep conflating the strict legal question with the moral situation. No, I don't. I'm not arguing the morality of it at all. You're the one who wants to argue oughts. But as a matter of objective fact, whether something is "murder" is a question of law, not a question of morality. > I don't think there are too many people thinking that Ross has any worry about being held criminally or civilly liable Applying the label "murder" to the act is inherently claiming criminal liability (whether a prediction, expectation or "in a just world" pontification). Many people I have seen in this discussion do seem to think there's a case for it (although I maintain that this results from a flawed understanding of law). > But if we're talking about the moral situation We are not. As far as I can tell, I have only mentioned morality in order to address your personal attacks. I am sticking to the facts because that is what I am interested in discussing. Please go through the thread and count the number of times I use the phrase "as a matter of objective fact" or similar. I am being very clear and consistent about this. > Then no, law enforcement officers should not be able to use "obstruction" as a pretext to demand an arrest in response to Constitutionally-protected protest The evidence does not show any such thing happening. It is not a pretext, and constitutional protections on protest do not extend to blocking the road. It's very easy to find legal support for this; so there is no reason to make these suppositions about a hidden motive. > at which point they then needlessly escalate the arrest into an armed standoff As an objective matter of fact, no escalation occurred. You have repeatedly made a false assertion and repeatedly refuse to even attempt to justify it. As an objective matter of fact, an "armed standoff" did not occur. That would describe a situation where two people threatened each other with firearms. Only one party to this shows evidence of having a firearm (which is a baseline expectation for LEO), and there is no moment where a threat was made; the shooting was an immediate response. > they kill the person due to the "danger" of the situation they themselves created. The danger was clear and present, and your use of scare quotes is an emotional appeal. Walking in front of a stopped vehicle, while the driver is legally required to abandon operation and exit the vehicle, cannot reasonably be described as "creating danger". That is even more absurd than arguing that pedestrians using a crossing create danger for themselves by being in the road. > At a certain point you have to look at the realities of law enforcement agency not having a mandate or respect from the people it is working amongst. As an objective matter of fact, the federal government is legally entitled to pass and enforce immigration law, the enforcement of which necessarily entails expelling people from the country who do not have a legal right to be in the country. And as an objective matter of fact, Trump won the popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...) after explicitly running on a platform that included these actions. That is as much of a "mandate" as a POTUS ever gets. > Can we at least agree that it would have been easy to write down Good's vehicle's license plate, other identifying information, timestamps from bodycams, etc, deescalate the situation by ICE simply leaving, and then follow up later either with a federal arrest (FBI) or local PD? No, not at all. There is no good reason why they should have "simply left". That would have resulted in the SUV remaining in place, which would have been a general risk to safety and would have continued to interfere with ICE doing their job in the area. The ICE agents were not just randomly milling about the area so that they could be protested against.

> I do not understand why my comments are flagged. Entertaining the idea that they could be wrong goes against their principles.

by ratrace 8mo ago

> I do not understand why my comments are flagged. Entertaining the idea that they could be wrong goes against their principles.

mindslight 8mo ago

No, endlessly going around in circles responding to the same emotional (and often factually wrong) talking points is an abuse of our principles, and we're finally starting to say we've had enough of it. I'm a libertarian who actually believes in a society based around individual liberty and limited government, and doesn't just pay lip service to it. If we had a blue-flavored government, and it was performing similarly liberty-abhorrent actions on a different topic, I would be criticizing those as well. But we don't, and the current government has escalated so far beyond even the hanging-by-a-thread norms that we previously had, I think it's utterly naive to think any of this is about "immigration enforcement" in the first place.

zahlman 8mo ago
> endlessly going around in circles responding to the same emotional (and often factually wrong) talking points is an abuse of our principles I don't know who "our" refers to, but it certainly is an abuse of my principles. Which is exactly why I do not make emotional appeals in my comments, and stick to what I can factually verify, including with timestamps in video footage and citations of the relevant legal standards. And why I clearly argue for where others are factually wrong instead of making blanket assertions without evidence. It is my interlocutors who are making emotional appeals and claims that are not supported by the evidence, up to the point of accusing me of "lying" about video depicting things even as I clearly point to the exact points in the video that clearly depict them.
- mindslight 8mo ago
  You made plenty of emotional appeals in your comments. You just made them as assertions of facts ("no legitimate reason", "acting belligerently towards the agents", "serious threat of death or injury"). You even went so far as to bring up the fact that she was protesting as if this indicts rather than exonerates her! I've had two prior of these threads where I went around in circles tediously refuting these types of emotional appeals, so forgive me if my patience is shot on that front. If you want to see where I am coming from rather than writing me off as one of the caricatures your media sources have told you to pigeonhole the opposition into, you can just read those threads in full: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46557993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46557993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46543786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46543786 But as I said, my only real question to you is how many more Americans need to be killed before you admit that maybe us critics have a point about the methods being used here.
  - zahlman 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - mindslight 8mo ago
      You keep conflating the strict legal question with the moral situation. I don't think there are too many people thinking that Ross has any worry about being held criminally or civilly liable, even if state isn't dissuaded from their prosecution, and even if the federal court where this inevitably gets bumped to actually deliberates impartially. There is a long history of police officers needlessly executing people and walking away. That's basically the problem, right? But if we're talking about the moral situation, what ought to be in a country based on individual liberty and limited government? Then no, law enforcement officers should not be able to use "obstruction" as a pretext to demand an arrest in response to Constitutionally-protected protest, at which point they then needlessly escalate the arrest into an armed standoff, and then when the person still doesn't comply, they kill the person due to the "danger" of the situation they themselves created. At a certain point you have to look at the realities of law enforcement agency not having a mandate or respect from the people it is working amongst. We saw how exactly corrosive this is to the rule of law with the "drug war". Can we at least agree that it would have been easy to write down Good's vehicle's license plate, other identifying information, timestamps from bodycams, etc, deescalate the situation by ICE simply leaving, and then follow up later either with a federal arrest (FBI) or local PD?
      - zahlman 8mo ago
        > You keep conflating the strict legal question with the moral situation. No, I don't. I'm not arguing the morality of it at all. You're the one who wants to argue oughts. But as a matter of objective fact, whether something is "murder" is a question of law, not a question of morality. > I don't think there are too many people thinking that Ross has any worry about being held criminally or civilly liable Applying the label "murder" to the act is inherently claiming criminal liability (whether a prediction, expectation or "in a just world" pontification). Many people I have seen in this discussion do seem to think there's a case for it (although I maintain that this results from a flawed understanding of law). > But if we're talking about the moral situation We are not. As far as I can tell, I have only mentioned morality in order to address your personal attacks. I am sticking to the facts because that is what I am interested in discussing. Please go through the thread and count the number of times I use the phrase "as a matter of objective fact" or similar. I am being very clear and consistent about this. > Then no, law enforcement officers should not be able to use "obstruction" as a pretext to demand an arrest in response to Constitutionally-protected protest The evidence does not show any such thing happening. It is not a pretext, and constitutional protections on protest do not extend to blocking the road. It's very easy to find legal support for this; so there is no reason to make these suppositions about a hidden motive. > at which point they then needlessly escalate the arrest into an armed standoff As an objective matter of fact, no escalation occurred. You have repeatedly made a false assertion and repeatedly refuse to even attempt to justify it. As an objective matter of fact, an "armed standoff" did not occur. That would describe a situation where two people threatened each other with firearms. Only one party to this shows evidence of having a firearm (which is a baseline expectation for LEO), and there is no moment where a threat was made; the shooting was an immediate response. > they kill the person due to the "danger" of the situation they themselves created. The danger was clear and present, and your use of scare quotes is an emotional appeal. Walking in front of a stopped vehicle, while the driver is legally required to abandon operation and exit the vehicle, cannot reasonably be described as "creating danger". That is even more absurd than arguing that pedestrians using a crossing create danger for themselves by being in the road. > At a certain point you have to look at the realities of law enforcement agency not having a mandate or respect from the people it is working amongst. As an objective matter of fact, the federal government is legally entitled to pass and enforce immigration law, the enforcement of which necessarily entails expelling people from the country who do not have a legal right to be in the country. And as an objective matter of fact, Trump won the popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...) after explicitly running on a platform that included these actions. That is as much of a "mandate" as a POTUS ever gets. > Can we at least agree that it would have been easy to write down Good's vehicle's license plate, other identifying information, timestamps from bodycams, etc, deescalate the situation by ICE simply leaving, and then follow up later either with a federal arrest (FBI) or local PD? No, not at all. There is no good reason why they should have "simply left". That would have resulted in the SUV remaining in place, which would have been a general risk to safety and would have continued to interfere with ICE doing their job in the area. The ICE agents were not just randomly milling about the area so that they could be protested against.