Comment by mothballed

21 days ago

Is kicking out tail lights and spitting at agents obstruction?[] Because he definitely appears to have done that about a week before his death. Though that doesn't merit death.

[] https://youtu.be/p2TRbFmutrw?t=1023

8 comments

mothballed

Reply
defrost  21 days ago

I scrolled back a little.

There are a number of local citizens upset at two out of state vehicles blocking off a road while (?) executing warrentless invasions of homes in the community (?)

What is the appropriate action when Federal over reach is so blatent and unaddressed?

It's not as if people there are angry at ICE / DHS for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

  • mothballed  20 days ago

    Two things can simultaneously be true. That the legal criteria of obstruction have been reached, and also that the Federal apparatus routinely oversteps both the constitutional and the most essential natural rights.

    Just know the King interprets spitting and kicking tail lights as a 'shot at the King.' Pretti took his shot at the King, with his cosmetic accessory piece gun tucked in his waistband, at about 4 out of 100. And expected the King to meet him with something other than 100 or 0. In that light, I'll concede of the possibility he was morally right, but I also think he was a fool. If his goal all along was to kneel, let himself be disarmed, then quietly accept his execution like a bitch -- what did he even get out of it? He handed the pro-regime a major propaganda victory and the anti-regime nothing at best.

    • defrost  20 days ago

      Uhh, right, .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWu7d5YqV9k

      > He handed the pro-regime a major propaganda victory and the anti-regime nothing at best.

      That's not even remotely true - currently the MAGA pro-Trump crowd is cleaving on gun rights .. the big lie about the need for ICE / DHS is unravelling and now Republican support for ICE is dropping.

      1 reply →

  • account42  20 days ago

    > What is the appropriate action when Federal over reach is so blatent and unaddressed?

    In a democracy? Voting, campaigning, running for office. Defintiely not vigilantism - or other people will also get to ignore laws that you like.

    • defrost  20 days ago

      > Defintiely not vigilantism

      So, free speech, licenced carry, local community resisting unlawful warrents, etc are all ok?

      Voting, in the USofA, is ineffectual - it takes years to make change and the choices are essentially shite .. barely a Democracy, more a Republican Autocracy by design.

      Of interest:

        On Monday, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, appointed by President George W. Bush, suggested his patience with ICE had run out. After officials apparently ignored his order to permit a detainee to have a bond hearing or release him, he ordered Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, to appear in court on Friday to explain why he wasn’t in contempt of court. On Tuesday, the government released the detainee.

  Today Schiltz canceled the Friday hearing but went on to rake ICE over the coals. He identified “96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases” and commented, “The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated.”

  “This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” Schiltz warned that he would haul Lyons or other government officials into court if they kept ignoring court rulings. “ICE is not a law unto itself,” he wrote.

      Letters from an American - https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-28-2026

      The USofA is literally a country founded on the principle of not allowing Kings or autocracts, certainly not federal authority, step on states right and self determination.

    • direwolf20  20 days ago

      What would you have do in on any other authoritarian regime?

      If the government comes to your house and kidnaps your wife, is your first instinct 1: let them, don't fight and 2: vote harder?

      1 reply →