When is "enough" .... well enough (Minnesota ICE shooting)

In My Humble Opinion
61

Is there anywhere else to view that? That link says the video is “no longer available” after it plays for a few seconds.

re: OP

When ICE/Border Patrol/whoever start losing the pretense of immigration enforcement and it’s just purely an arm of enforcing Trump’s will, it will be much harder and take much longer to undo (decades + hope). I have it dead set in my brain it’s going to cross over into voting (he’ll lose congressional tools and only have these executive tools once D take back Congress). However, if it’s still just super aggressively/illegally enforcing immigration laws, that can be reigned back in a much shorter timeframe (years; it’ll feel like forever, though).

As I think that video alludes to by reading the comments, they didn’t ultimately want to break in that door. They needed a warrant, and because it would be a very bad look. Eventually, at some point they won’t care about the warrant.

Calling them out, protesting, etc. helps keep that political pressure that lots of Americans don’t agree with any of this. For me, it’s much less about the why (ICE enforcing immigration law), and everything with the how (how they enforce the law) - I think this type of framing gets more people to agree with each other.

To show my disagreement with the how, I’m willing and able to protest all the time. I think it helps and it helps to keep this from spiraling out of control. I still think is some control (needing a warrant) and we are in the spectrum of definitely don’t care about a lot but still do care some.

62

Run out of edit to explain a bit more:

It is not that they passively tolerate the current state of affairs, they are the ones that do contact their congress critters and go to townhalls to let them know constantly that what the rubber stampers are doing is not OK.

What is also needed is to complain to the news media to do their jobs. And for them to not be just boot lickers.

63

youtube link

This isn’t the original video, but it has some of the footage and is about the same incident.

ETA: found a better vid

FYI, I have an important deadline today, so I won’t be back to this thread for a bit (unless I am bad at focusing)

64

Wow. That was wild. And emotional.

65

So disgusting that she tried to call the local police, and they would not support her. I would be interested to hear a good analysis of what went on in that situation.

-I would assume you can deny entry w/o a warrant - tho I don’t know about if you were harboring a fleeing felon or something (yeah - vastly different from a Door Dash driver.)

-What would follow if they broke in and tried to charge the homeowner?

-What exactly did the various local LEOs say/do? I couldn’t hear all of the phone calls.

-I’d appreciate some follow-up on the people involved - the homeowners, the driver, the neighbors. This sort of thing really makes a horribly real situation even moreso.

Just shocking that we need to anticipate what we can/must do and what we risk in such horrendous situations.

(Not that I needed another reason to not use Door Dash! :wink: )

66

You can always not give consent for the police to enter your home. Always.

They can still come in with a warrant, and sometimes legally without one, but you never have to consent to that. If you do consent, they never need a warrant or warrant exception.

re: Local LEO. I couldn’t hear anything really except they did say the homeowner “had two options”. They said it calmly. After that phone call with local LEO, homeowner apologized to, and, took the door dash driver to the front door and opened it.

re: Harboring. ICE mentioned she would be charged with that. Seems questionable if it would stick. We don’t see it, but it’s described that the driver ran into their house - they didn’t flee ICE together and take her there. After that, the only thing the homeowners did was assert their 4th Amendment right - I don’t think any situation can force you to give consent.
It was a tense situation for sure, but from ICE perspective I don’t think it was - it just took a little longer. Homeowner did not give consent, if there’s no other legal way to enter the house (or you don’t want the baggage that might come with that on video), then get a warrant or leave. That’s how it played out. I don’t see how you’d be guilty for a crime just because you asserted your rights and ICE has to go get a warrant. Like if you kept the door locked/etc after the warrant, sure. But not before.

I’d like follow-up too. Eventually, the driver has to leave the house and ICE can sit and wait around the corner.

Lastly, it’s incredible to me that she felt comforted by the fact that she had 11,000 tik tok followers. She didn’t feel alone. I think it would be comforting. It’s the being all alone part that makes those situations extra scary.

67

You sure about that? Cops see someone commit a crime and follow him to your home and see him through the front window?

Yeah - extreme and undoubtedly rare. But “always” is also a pretty extreme statement.

Are ICE agents exactly the same as police? I imagine so, but am not absolutely sure. What if they were National Guard troops?

68

I’m sure. I think it’s taking us two different places. It doesn’t mean ICE won’t come through my door, it just means they can’t use my consent as a legal basis to come through my door. Basically, there are three legal basis for a police to go inside a house: Consent, Warrant, Warrant-exception (which is what you’re getting at in your example - there is no consent, no warrant, but police still have a valid basis to come inside; in the door dash video, I’d imagine they might have talked to the lawyers about any warrant exceptions - or could have done that if they wanted)

Honestly, though, always is an extreme statement so I wouldn’t mind being fact-checked here.

No. ICE are federal. By police I assume you mean State police (ie, peace officers). State codes apply to peace officers. Federal agents can become peace officers, but I think they need a state authority to authorize it. If not, then ICE cannot enforce state laws (or traffic violations, etc.). They would only be authorized to enforce their federal immigration laws.

Per the Posse Comitatus Act, National guard troops cannot enforce any laws. Not until the Insurrection Act is invoked - that allows the military to enforce domestic law and why Trump keeps bringing it up.

69

There is nothing that we can be short of an organized, armed revolt to stand up to the administration. The legal avenues have been effectively shut down. We’ve tried the courts. We’ve tried impeachment. We’ve tried taking to the streets.

That hasn’t and that won’t work. If you effectively stopped every ICE agent, Trump would just start another secret police force. He’s operating outside of the bounds of the law and there is literally nothing peaceful we can do to stop him. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants , and all that.

Now, having said that, it is the very last thing I want or would participate in. Nor do I necessarily condone it. This is IMHO, and I’m offering my opinion as to what it would take, as posed by the OP.

I don’t think Trump will relinquish his post next election. My wife disagrees, she thinks if a true and fair election votes against him, the Dems will regain control. Not a chance. Things are going to get worse - the aforementioned " slowly boiling frog scenario " and all. But IMHO we have passed the turning point - Trump has swung things too far his way for there to be a reversal anytime soon.

70

The you surround NewICE as well. Then NotICE, and ICE?WhosThat? and every new agency they create. There’s not enough money to hire enough cops to break this, if you get millions of people involved.

And when they start shooting people like Iran is doing, well, then, you’ll know the Civil War is finally at hand.

71

While keeping the old ones surrounded? This would take resources of manpower that I don’t believe is available. And how are these millions of people going to feed themselves while standing sentry at every ICE agent?

72

I was not meaning anything by police. You said “You can always not give consent for the police to enter your home.” I was unsure whether you were including ICE - and whomever else might come a knocking - to enter.

I would be surprised to learn that FBI/DEA agents, etc require state authorization. Not meaning to be a dick, but what is your background. Are you a lawyer? LEO? Just someone with an interest in 4th Amendment law?

I would be interested in learning the extent of warrant exceptions. I was intentionally coming up with a pretty extreme situation - in which I would imagine it possible that an exception exists.

But I guess I see where you are coming from. One should always withhold consent - even if you unlock - or even open - the door and do not try to resist. Loudly stating - while filming - that you do not consent to a search is generally a good idea.

I’m thinking of how hard it would be to be thinking, “I sure don’t want to consent to these assholes coming into my house. But I sure don’t want them busting my door/windows, which I will then need to repair/replace.” Well, I’m probably in a position where I could absorb any repair costs more easily than some. But still would be an equation a person oughtn’t have to solve in the face of armed thugs.

73

Got it. I should have said, you never have to give consent to any Gov’t employee. Police or someone from the Land Management Bureau.

Just a lawyer with a hobby. Lucky enough to have a Professor who not only taught criminal procedure, but also lots of National Security, law of war, etc type classes. He was also an expert at the Hague. I ran in those circle awhile and still read up on it.

Also, nothing dickish about asking how someone knows something. In my mind, there’s always two important parts to any info: what do you know, how do you know that. I like being asked to show my work. It’s usually not entirely correct and I can learn why or how to say it differently.

Generally though, State law are enforced by State employees. Federal laws are enforced by Federal employees. One can’t do the other. This is just because of federalism. We have a dual-sovereign system. The only times they can overlap is when a law/person allows them - basically a law might allow and then a proper State authority/person will enact that law and “deputize” a Fed to enforce State law for a moment. I’m not saying the FBI can’t come in and enforce federal law, they can anytime they want. But they can’t come in and enforce the State of Iowa’s laws without some kind of State authority allowing them to.

Even within the Federal law side, not all federal enforcement agencies can enforce all the federal laws. ICE can only enforce federal immigration laws, it cannot enforce federal tax laws, or drug laws, etc. That is the basic framework. There are of course many exceptions and things I’m unaware of when you get into the weeds.

These are the warrant exceptions assuming there is probable cause a crime is being committed:

  • Exigent circumstances (waiting for a warrant would risk harm/loss of evidence)
  • Plain view (I can see the dead body, I don’t need to go get a warrant)
  • Search incident to arrest (after you’re arrested you can be searched)
  • Consent (come on in)
  • Automobile exceptions (complicated, but they can search your car w/o warrant or consent)
  • Special needs (airports, schools, things like that)

For the door dasher, not sure any exception would apply.

There are other things like stop n frisk (Terry Stop) - it’s just a quick pat-down when the police are briefly stopping you but don’t have probable cause that a crime is being committed. Not exactly an exception, but a lesser set of circumstances (reasonable suspicion).

Sometimes the exceptions can swallow the rule that a warrant is required. You’re home though is treated as a sanctuary. Relatively speaking.

74

Thanks, man. I’m kind of a privacy and free speech nut myself. Used to try to keep up on relevant law, but got dismayed at what I perceived as ongoing erosion by the courts.

75

To answer the OP, I don’t think we’ll get to “that point” until we have one or several incidents in which a 100% clearly innocent person is gunned down with 0% justification by ICE.

The pro-ICE MAGAs, of course, will always claw for whatever bit of justification they can find. With Renee Good, for instance, the immediate narrative was, “She hit the agents with her car, so that’s why she got shot.” But when or if we get to an incident where an ICE agent shoots a civilian just for the fun of it in broad daylight with zero excuse, on video, that’ll probably be a turning point.

76

I really doubt it. They will support it. Maybe at that point, some of the people pretending Trumpists aren’t fascists will come to their senses.

77

I doubt it, too. The way the right is spinning the Renee Good narrative shows how invested people are in the narrative that everything is still okay.

78

Agreed. What we need is for the apologists of Trumpism to finally admit that their MAGA uncles are truly awful people and not wait for them to snap out of it.

79

Isn’t the mindset, “If you don’t want to get shot, don’t do xyz around ICE activity,” similar to “If you aren’t doing anything wrong, why would you object to a search?” I think it will be hard for any number of unwarranted shootings to sway a good many people.