Comment by mekdoonggi
8 hours ago
"Why would anyone be opposed to deporting criminals" is verbatim what I've read from conservative commenters.
That isn't the issue being discussed. This is illustrating that armed, masked goons as a political weapon is a pandora's box that will get turned against everyone, regardless of status. Some people just don't care about the violence in Minnesota because it isn't happening to them.
Almost every major US criminal constitutional rights case started with an actual criminal, or at least someone unsavory. Miranda was a rapist. Gideon of Gideon v. Wainwright was a burglar. Brady of Brady v. Maryland was a robber and possibly a murderer. These cases helped form the foundation of what due process actually means in the United States. But contemporary discussion surely included a lot of commentary like "Why would anyone be opposed to prosecuting murders, rapists, and violent criminals?" And that commentary was just as irrelevant then as it is now.
It's not about whether the US deports criminals. It's about how we go about doing it.
[flagged]
In the US, the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, which courts have interpreted again and again as requiring that punishment be proportionate to the conduct. Weems v. United States (1910), for example, struck down a 15-year hard-labor sentence for a man who engaged in criminal fraud.
Do you think Alex Pretti or Renee Good deserved 15 years of hard labor for disobeying ICE? How about just five years? Because what actually happened was they were executed on the spot.
There is no FAFO exception in the US Constitution.
Cruel and unusual punishment is about sentencing, after a trial. These folks didn't go through a trial.
No, I don't think either person deserved fifteen years of hard labor, or five years.
What actually happened is not that they were executed on the spot, no.
1 reply →
We’re not sure what your point is. “Things of a similar nature have happened in the past” is not a particularly strong argument.
> In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.
This is naked bootlicking. You only support it because you view it as “your team” or “your tribe” and do not feel threatened by it. Tables turn in time. Maybe you are not old or wise or well-read enough to recognize that.
I don't view law enforcement as my team. But I do want the laws enforced.
3 replies →
Normalizing state-sanctioned extra-judicial murder along with a message of compliance? Maybe go find videos of where compliance got people killed because the fact is the slave catchers enjoy brutality and murder.
I'm not normalizing it, it's already normalized. We have accepted this kind of policing forever.
Nothing in Minnesota has changed the game, except masks maybe, since they're being doxxed.
4 replies →
> In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.
This is one of the worst takes I have ever seen, to the point that you must just be trolling.
Disobeying law enforcement is not a death sentence. It is often not even illegal. Just because LEO shouts "I am giving you a lawful order" does not in fact make it a lawful order. And this certainly is not happening in most other countries.
The desire to be part of the Trump Tribe has made people forget what actually made America great.
If it's not a lawful order, you fight that in court. It's almost a free pass to get out of whatever you did.
But what she was given was a lawful order. That's the one I'm talking about.
I'm not a trump voter.
5 replies →
Enslavement, genocide, domination, and extraction made it great. For those who forgot.
What we're watching is the collapse of such an unsustainable approach.
Obama managed to deport more illegal immigrants than Trump. The difference is the local cities and states were working with ICE, rather than weaponising it to try and get a Democrat president.
Obama even gave Tom Homan a medal for his work.
You forget that Obama wasn’t an idiot and did everything above board. Sanctuary cities existed back then, federal agents still enforced immigration rules just without Gestapo-like sh*t stirring. Trump wanted to provoke Minneapolis with aggressive highly visible tactics, and he got what he wanted.
[flagged]
14 replies →
The difference is that the Obama version was done with due process, i.e. constitutionally.