Blowing whistles in people's ears is harassment and assault. Not a first amendment right. Hearing loss is worse than broken bones. The pedantry in describing the actions of the anti-ICE contingent as "peaceful legal observers" is a lie intended to obfuscate the real issues. It's like the bullshit description of Mahmoud Khalil as an outspoken protester with no mention of his trespassing, harassment and vandalism.
No. My point is that the first amendment does not allow for harassment and assault. The whole point of a noisy civil disobedient protest is to acknowledge that you might get arrested for breaking laws in furtherance of your goals. Not to claim immunity from society's laws.
Money used to blow up buildings is not free speech. Money used to place ads on tv is. Burning flags in an organized protest on a sidewalk may be free speech but burning flags in a dry campsite that turns into a forest fire is not protected from prosecution because the blaze was started with a flag.
You're obviously the type of imbecile who believes that the heckler's veto is a first amendment right. It isn’t.
The Federal government is empowered to enforce immigration law. Biden used that power in Texas to prevent the state from closing its border to illegal migrants. Trump is using the same power to remove illegal migrants. Unless you believe we should have our borders open to the millions who wish to come to the US, you must support the removal process.
All mass movements have participants who are in it for the excitement. Some are immature and/or unstable. Renee Good is an example and the groups encouraging adherents to confront armed law enforcement are exploiting their vulnerabilities. They win when one is injured or killed because it generates sympathy as is happening now.
The man killed yesterday was armed! He may have been a sweet person as one of his emergency room colleagues claimed, but only a fool would confront armed law enforcement carrying a weapon. How is a member of ICE to know if he plans to use it against them? Why bring it? That right there shows poor judgment.
Every killing by law enforcement should be investigated by an independent commission, but that should not stop immigration enforcement. If Noem were smart she would authorize such an investigation and agree to accept the outcome.
They didn’t know he was armed when they started beating him. Additionally, law enforcement has an obligation to know how to interact with an armed citizenry, because we have the right to be armed. Them not knowing what he *might* do with a holstered and lawfully carried weapon isn’t justification for any of their actions. If you can’t handle interacting with someone armed without shooting them, don’t go into law enforcement.
People must be scouring their videos for other appearances by Sketti. I came across one where he attacks a car full of ICE and eventually kicks out a taillight. At which point an ICE person jumps out of the car and chases him down. Maybe the group who shot him knew him from previous incidents. Of course, I am suspicious of every video now because AI.
America has a really schizophrenic and corrupt approach to migration law enforcement. Every administration treats it like 'rules-based' policy; which gets selectively enforced. It is no surprise to me, a Texan, living with the inconsistencies creating a pathway, not for citizenship, but histrionic levels of high-pitched corruption for global agents.
It is always important not to rush to judgment in cases of this type. Radical movements attract people looking for excitement and attention. I predict that there will be more videos of Pretti that come to light and like others (famous and not famous) who moved through the causes of the day with equal ferocity, they will likely show that the cause itself does not matter.
I mean, that's already happened. The issue is that the agencies which can investigate have declared they won't be. What the public thinks is irrelevant to that process.
Very disappointing. We do not need to defend illegal activity in order to protect our 1st Amendment Rights. But we do need to be nuanced. The main premise of this post is demonstrably false - that these protesters are, for the most part, and specifically those involved in altercations with ICE, are simply exercising their God given right to “PEACEABLY assemble.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Harassment, assault, battery, destruction of property, refusal to follow lawful orders and obstructing an arrest, are all CRIMINAL activities that not only justify a response, they demand one. And, as to the 2nd Amendment, while bringing a weapon into this environment might be legal, it certainly isn’t prudent. These agitators use the Bill of Rights, a document they have no real regard for, as an incredibly effective tool to protect their insurrectionist behavior. So, while we must absolutely continue to defend and protect those Rights, we MUST NOT CONDONE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, simply because they disguise it as Free Speech. If we do, we are well and truly screwed.
It's called civil disobedience, and protesters doing that are subject to lawful arrest. An officer shooting someone dead without any clear self-defense justification is pretty far from lawful arrest, but is simply murder under the aegis of enforcing the law.
I’ve always been a big fan of Thoreau and admire those willing to suffer the consequences of their own acts of civil disobedience. What I’m NOT OK with is the government choosing when to impose those consequences based on the political stripe of the perp. If these sanctuary cities called balls and strikes fairly, there would be FAR less of the nonsense we’re seeing in MN, today, and the world would be a much safer place. As evidence, where is ALL this violence happening? Where does it not happen at all? Hint - Your answer should have the word “sanctuary” in it.
More importantly, your comment completely falls apart with “without any clear self-defense justification.” Guy carries a gun into the chaos created by unlawful agitators disrupting those enforcing our laws. Aggressively, physically confronts LEO’s. Tell me. How do ICE agents know what his intentions are? Is this, in your mind, always going to be a “Do not fire unless fired upon” situation? Do agents have to take one (or more) for the team before responding with deadly force?
Though these specific agents may not have known that this guy spit on their colleague AND kicked the tail light out of an ICE vehicle just days before, they could plainly see that he was 1) armed with a deadly weapon, and 2) willing to use physical force to get his way. So, the fact that they may not have known his intentions is THE WHOLE POINT.
Without question, this was an 100% avoidable tragedy. But 100% of the responsibility for it happening falls on the dead guy. He was NOT merely exercising his right to free speech. (the point of the original article) He was NOT killed without justification. Turns out the the “victim” the MSM tried to paint as yet another beatific martyr for the cause was, in the moment that mattered, just another militant agitator taking huge risks with his own safety and that of others.
Your description of the situation is so out of touch with reality, that it's clear you're simply trying to invent a justification. He was not brandishing a gun. He was noncompliant, but not violent. And, yes, he caused damage to an ICE vehicle several DAYS earlier - so what. That's now an immediate threat to life and limb??? Utter BS. I stand by my point - civil disobedience subjects one to LAWFUL arrest, and ICE's on-the-spot executions are anything but that. But that underscores another valid reason for civil disobedience, which is to expose the unlawful brutality of a repressive state apparatus. In this, the Minnesota protesters are succeeding.
I wish FIRE would directly address the more difficult issue here: interference with law enforcement. What conduct can be considered interference? Blocking streets by slow-rolling and stopping in the road? Blowing whistles when agents are approaching a location where they suspect a target of enforcement is present? Approaching within a few feet of officers during an operation and cursing them out? Is this legal behavior? How often are these things happening? Frequently, from what I can gather.
Anti-abortion protestors are restricted in many ways, such as buffer zones around people and places, restrictions on noise, and a requirement for a permit before large demonstrations are legal.
If these anti-ICE protests establish precedents for protestor behavior, will we be comfortable seeing similar conduct in other contexts?
I'd also be curious to get FIRE's position on the restrictions that are in place for abortion protestors. They are very much at odds with the approach being advocated here.
Thanks for that. I reviewed the Supreme Court case you referred to. It struck down a city ordinance deemed "overbroad" for restricting speech that was supposedly interfering with an officer. I'm not persuaded that, for example, citizens have a right to follow police and blow whistles as they converge on a suspect's location. There is also a whole genre on YouTube of citizens who mistakenly believe that arguing with a police officer while they are giving lawful orders—"step out of your car, step back from me"—is free speech. I appreciate your article, but it left the definition of interference to the eye of the beholder. Perhaps these events will lead to more clarity on this.
This is an opportunity to think a little. Read my question to FIRE again. Is it possible that some people are protesting without interference, while others are actively interfering? You've literally seen this interference in many of the videos circulating online. These officers are literally in the middle of operations when people approach them screaming and blowing whistles, or when they follow them and impede their movement in cars. Is this the new normal for "protest?" This thread has nothing to do with "having it coming." Your remarks have no bearing on the distinction between protest and interference that I am discussing. You want an ICE is bad argument.
Good lord. You are apparently beyond reason. You are literally arguing with the voice in your head. I have been discussing the boundaries of free expression in the context of protest versus interference. You desperately want to fight with someone who is claiming that ICE is operating to perfection. I'm sure you can easily find that person and really give them a piece of your mind. Have a great time.
I have been a identity privacy advocate, formally and informally, for 18 years now. I have never been in the position yet to defend the privacy security of federal police, who usually were the only ones with the technical power to scan for ID. Now people who are either, too ignorant or surrendered their identity privacy to convenience tech idols, are plumbstocking their mobile phones with their drivers licenses and passports. It's a really bad decision I tell people to not force upon themselves. However, to turn around and then use globally sourced FRT applications to stalk law enforcement and harass their families, as if they are the cops is not a hazy legal matter. That is harassment and stalking that can be enhanced for attacking a federal law officer to the point of 20 year prison sentences for terrorism. My 'job' officially has always sucked, but it be sucking today, Ladies and Gents. It be sucking today.
It was all men who beat Alex Pretti and it was men who shot him multiple times, and somehow you still find a way to blame women. Get help, William. You are not okay.
Preach.
Blowing whistles in people's ears is harassment and assault. Not a first amendment right. Hearing loss is worse than broken bones. The pedantry in describing the actions of the anti-ICE contingent as "peaceful legal observers" is a lie intended to obfuscate the real issues. It's like the bullshit description of Mahmoud Khalil as an outspoken protester with no mention of his trespassing, harassment and vandalism.
So, your position is that the first amendment only counts when protestors can be easily ignored.
No. My point is that the first amendment does not allow for harassment and assault. The whole point of a noisy civil disobedient protest is to acknowledge that you might get arrested for breaking laws in furtherance of your goals. Not to claim immunity from society's laws.
If loud noise is a permissable reason to over-ride the first amendment, why have it in the first place?
Honestly we should be invalidating laws that impinge on the amendment, not the other way around.
Loud noise isn’t speech. Laser pointers in eyes isn’t speech. That you can’t see the equivalence is disturbing
Money is speech. Burning flags is speech.
So no, loud noise is speech. You literally cannot have a protest without loud noise occuring.
Money used to blow up buildings is not free speech. Money used to place ads on tv is. Burning flags in an organized protest on a sidewalk may be free speech but burning flags in a dry campsite that turns into a forest fire is not protected from prosecution because the blaze was started with a flag.
You're obviously the type of imbecile who believes that the heckler's veto is a first amendment right. It isn’t.
The Federal government is empowered to enforce immigration law. Biden used that power in Texas to prevent the state from closing its border to illegal migrants. Trump is using the same power to remove illegal migrants. Unless you believe we should have our borders open to the millions who wish to come to the US, you must support the removal process.
All mass movements have participants who are in it for the excitement. Some are immature and/or unstable. Renee Good is an example and the groups encouraging adherents to confront armed law enforcement are exploiting their vulnerabilities. They win when one is injured or killed because it generates sympathy as is happening now.
The man killed yesterday was armed! He may have been a sweet person as one of his emergency room colleagues claimed, but only a fool would confront armed law enforcement carrying a weapon. How is a member of ICE to know if he plans to use it against them? Why bring it? That right there shows poor judgment.
Every killing by law enforcement should be investigated by an independent commission, but that should not stop immigration enforcement. If Noem were smart she would authorize such an investigation and agree to accept the outcome.
They didn’t know he was armed when they started beating him. Additionally, law enforcement has an obligation to know how to interact with an armed citizenry, because we have the right to be armed. Them not knowing what he *might* do with a holstered and lawfully carried weapon isn’t justification for any of their actions. If you can’t handle interacting with someone armed without shooting them, don’t go into law enforcement.
People must be scouring their videos for other appearances by Sketti. I came across one where he attacks a car full of ICE and eventually kicks out a taillight. At which point an ICE person jumps out of the car and chases him down. Maybe the group who shot him knew him from previous incidents. Of course, I am suspicious of every video now because AI.
Redcoat says what now?
America has a really schizophrenic and corrupt approach to migration law enforcement. Every administration treats it like 'rules-based' policy; which gets selectively enforced. It is no surprise to me, a Texan, living with the inconsistencies creating a pathway, not for citizenship, but histrionic levels of high-pitched corruption for global agents.
But she didn't. And it's pretty clear there will be no investigation.
So, when law enforcement kills and citizens are denied any recourse, what then?
It is always important not to rush to judgment in cases of this type. Radical movements attract people looking for excitement and attention. I predict that there will be more videos of Pretti that come to light and like others (famous and not famous) who moved through the causes of the day with equal ferocity, they will likely show that the cause itself does not matter.
I mean, that's already happened. The issue is that the agencies which can investigate have declared they won't be. What the public thinks is irrelevant to that process.
Very disappointing. We do not need to defend illegal activity in order to protect our 1st Amendment Rights. But we do need to be nuanced. The main premise of this post is demonstrably false - that these protesters are, for the most part, and specifically those involved in altercations with ICE, are simply exercising their God given right to “PEACEABLY assemble.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Harassment, assault, battery, destruction of property, refusal to follow lawful orders and obstructing an arrest, are all CRIMINAL activities that not only justify a response, they demand one. And, as to the 2nd Amendment, while bringing a weapon into this environment might be legal, it certainly isn’t prudent. These agitators use the Bill of Rights, a document they have no real regard for, as an incredibly effective tool to protect their insurrectionist behavior. So, while we must absolutely continue to defend and protect those Rights, we MUST NOT CONDONE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, simply because they disguise it as Free Speech. If we do, we are well and truly screwed.
It's called civil disobedience, and protesters doing that are subject to lawful arrest. An officer shooting someone dead without any clear self-defense justification is pretty far from lawful arrest, but is simply murder under the aegis of enforcing the law.
I’ve always been a big fan of Thoreau and admire those willing to suffer the consequences of their own acts of civil disobedience. What I’m NOT OK with is the government choosing when to impose those consequences based on the political stripe of the perp. If these sanctuary cities called balls and strikes fairly, there would be FAR less of the nonsense we’re seeing in MN, today, and the world would be a much safer place. As evidence, where is ALL this violence happening? Where does it not happen at all? Hint - Your answer should have the word “sanctuary” in it.
More importantly, your comment completely falls apart with “without any clear self-defense justification.” Guy carries a gun into the chaos created by unlawful agitators disrupting those enforcing our laws. Aggressively, physically confronts LEO’s. Tell me. How do ICE agents know what his intentions are? Is this, in your mind, always going to be a “Do not fire unless fired upon” situation? Do agents have to take one (or more) for the team before responding with deadly force?
Though these specific agents may not have known that this guy spit on their colleague AND kicked the tail light out of an ICE vehicle just days before, they could plainly see that he was 1) armed with a deadly weapon, and 2) willing to use physical force to get his way. So, the fact that they may not have known his intentions is THE WHOLE POINT.
Without question, this was an 100% avoidable tragedy. But 100% of the responsibility for it happening falls on the dead guy. He was NOT merely exercising his right to free speech. (the point of the original article) He was NOT killed without justification. Turns out the the “victim” the MSM tried to paint as yet another beatific martyr for the cause was, in the moment that mattered, just another militant agitator taking huge risks with his own safety and that of others.
FAFO
Your description of the situation is so out of touch with reality, that it's clear you're simply trying to invent a justification. He was not brandishing a gun. He was noncompliant, but not violent. And, yes, he caused damage to an ICE vehicle several DAYS earlier - so what. That's now an immediate threat to life and limb??? Utter BS. I stand by my point - civil disobedience subjects one to LAWFUL arrest, and ICE's on-the-spot executions are anything but that. But that underscores another valid reason for civil disobedience, which is to expose the unlawful brutality of a repressive state apparatus. In this, the Minnesota protesters are succeeding.
I wish FIRE would directly address the more difficult issue here: interference with law enforcement. What conduct can be considered interference? Blocking streets by slow-rolling and stopping in the road? Blowing whistles when agents are approaching a location where they suspect a target of enforcement is present? Approaching within a few feet of officers during an operation and cursing them out? Is this legal behavior? How often are these things happening? Frequently, from what I can gather.
Anti-abortion protestors are restricted in many ways, such as buffer zones around people and places, restrictions on noise, and a requirement for a permit before large demonstrations are legal.
If these anti-ICE protests establish precedents for protestor behavior, will we be comfortable seeing similar conduct in other contexts?
I address many of your good questions here: https://www.startribune.com/opinion-after-the-minneapolis-shootings-a-reminder-of-what-the-first-amendment-protects/601573301?utm_source=gift.
I'd also be curious to get FIRE's position on the restrictions that are in place for abortion protestors. They are very much at odds with the approach being advocated here.
Thanks for that. I reviewed the Supreme Court case you referred to. It struck down a city ordinance deemed "overbroad" for restricting speech that was supposedly interfering with an officer. I'm not persuaded that, for example, citizens have a right to follow police and blow whistles as they converge on a suspect's location. There is also a whole genre on YouTube of citizens who mistakenly believe that arguing with a police officer while they are giving lawful orders—"step out of your car, step back from me"—is free speech. I appreciate your article, but it left the definition of interference to the eye of the beholder. Perhaps these events will lead to more clarity on this.
I'd imagine ICE pepper spraying random bystanders would still be a problem, even given clear directions for the protestors.
That doesn't have anything to do with my questions for FIRE. Bystanders are not interfering with law enforcement. Other people are.
Like the woman Pretti was trying to help after she got maced?
Or the car full of kids that they threw a teargas grenade into? Or... There are thousands of examples.
Of course, ICE is going to say that every person who got hit had it coming. Are you going to believe them?
This is an opportunity to think a little. Read my question to FIRE again. Is it possible that some people are protesting without interference, while others are actively interfering? You've literally seen this interference in many of the videos circulating online. These officers are literally in the middle of operations when people approach them screaming and blowing whistles, or when they follow them and impede their movement in cars. Is this the new normal for "protest?" This thread has nothing to do with "having it coming." Your remarks have no bearing on the distinction between protest and interference that I am discussing. You want an ICE is bad argument.
And you seem to refuse to believe a paramilitary force can be brutal to civilians as a policy. Why?
Good lord. You are apparently beyond reason. You are literally arguing with the voice in your head. I have been discussing the boundaries of free expression in the context of protest versus interference. You desperately want to fight with someone who is claiming that ICE is operating to perfection. I'm sure you can easily find that person and really give them a piece of your mind. Have a great time.
I have been a identity privacy advocate, formally and informally, for 18 years now. I have never been in the position yet to defend the privacy security of federal police, who usually were the only ones with the technical power to scan for ID. Now people who are either, too ignorant or surrendered their identity privacy to convenience tech idols, are plumbstocking their mobile phones with their drivers licenses and passports. It's a really bad decision I tell people to not force upon themselves. However, to turn around and then use globally sourced FRT applications to stalk law enforcement and harass their families, as if they are the cops is not a hazy legal matter. That is harassment and stalking that can be enhanced for attacking a federal law officer to the point of 20 year prison sentences for terrorism. My 'job' officially has always sucked, but it be sucking today, Ladies and Gents. It be sucking today.
The real lesson here isn’t who was right or wrong—it’s how many people are being pushed to ignore their immediate safety for narrative participation.
Alex Pretti was killed in the process of being a “white knight” for a female who was in an altercation with a law enforcement officer.
Women get men killed and think nothing of it.
It was all men who beat Alex Pretti and it was men who shot him multiple times, and somehow you still find a way to blame women. Get help, William. You are not okay.
https://open.substack.com/pub/amuseonx/p/minnesotas-signalgate-the-anatomy?r=24w4vm&utm_medium=ios&shareImageVariant=overlay