People keep forgetting that it's possible to legally migrate, work for awhile, and so on, and then "become illegal" due to deadlines or administration issues.
An example every tech worker should understand is H1-B, where as an added bonus your employer can make you illegal.
the migration was legal. you're not an "illegal" when you drive with an expired license are you? so quotes is appropriate when using the term as a title instead of a verb.
> you're not an "illegal" when you drive with an expired license are you?
You are. Why do you think licenses have expiration dates? It legally authorises you to perform specific activity within specific timeframe. Any activity without license is illegal.
By same logic you can't stay in the house you legally rented previously.
No, you're being intentionally oblivious to justify something negative. You have done something illegal, that is not in contest. But people are not labeled "illegal" when their license expires. They're called out based on the specific thing they did. You can say "this person migrated illegally", that's different than saying "this person is an illegal", as if their very existence and presence is illegal, that's the insinuation and you're intentionally avoiding that. The fact that migrating illegally is is indeed illegal, and that illegal migrants, or those who stay here illegally must be removed has not been contested by anyone serious. You're advocating a stance that goes further than that and dehumanizes these people. You should lookup the videos of wailing children in detection camps with no heating in winter, migrants being strangled to death and beating in black sites, even US citizens being abducted and removed from the country - that's the propaganda you're supporting by claiming the people themselves are illegal as opposed to they committed something illegal and need to face lawful consequences. You don't need to be cruel and inhumane to enforce the law (in fact this is specifically prohibited by the constitution). There are people that enjoy and revel in the inhumanity and cruelty, I hope you're not on that side of things. It might cost a lot, but it is reasonably possible to locate, lawfully process (courts/lawyers) and remove every person that is not present in the US lawfully.
> By same logic you can't stay in the house you legally rented previously.
If you did, you'd be called a squatter, not "an illegal". Even squatters who take over someone's home have rights. Everyone gets due process. You foolishness is that you think because they're migrants, however they're treated won't affect you. I don't care what demographic group you're in, you'll be called an illegal soon enough. Words matter, the whole law is just a bunch of words.
Normally I wouldn't dignify the emotional word salad with a response, but it is important to state few things.
You conceal substance beneath a pile of semantic shenanigans. If someone stays in the country illegally, their presence in the county is illegal and law enforcement on that matter is warranted. You can call them saints if you like, it still doesn't make their presence legal. No matter if they entered the country legally and overstayed their visas, or plainly entered the country illegally. No matter how much leftist media make emotional appeals and frame it as "child dying" or any other sorts of manipulations you are trying to parrot as well - it remains illegal.
There are NO US citizens detained or "abducted" by ICE, provided they comply with due procedure for establishing their legal status. You are lying. There are possibly cases where ICE had to do checks on people who decline to confirm their status, which warrants further investigation.
I appreciate your concern regarding myself being called illegal, but let me assure you I am totally fine and will be totally fine, even being not a US citizen.
They're not just going after the so-called "illegal aliens", something made clear after the numerous extrajudicial killings by ICE officers recently, such as the one that occured yesterday.
Lol no, guns don't just magically go off when in a holster. Yes mechanical failures do happen, but it requires very specific types of impact in very specific ways that cannot happen when in a holster and are so rare as to happen on decade timescales with tens of thousands of the gun. Also I saw zero evidence of that guys gun going off in the video, the first shot heard is the shot coming out of the ICE goon's gun that he is pointing at that guy, who then also mag dumps him while he is on the ground.
The Sig Sauer P320, which is what Alex Pretti had, is notorious for unintentionally discharging. Various law enforcement agencies and militaries have stopped using it for that reason.
"the firearm may discharge when it is dropped and the back of the slide hits the ground at a 33-degree angle"
That is pretty hard to accomplish while its in a holster unless the guy was suplexed and his entire spine turned to jello giving the gun a multi-foot uncushioned drop.
"misfire was due to "a partial depression of the trigger by a foreign object combined with simultaneous movement of the slide"
Which is irrelevant when in a shielded holster like this guy has.
On top of all this, even had the gun went off, which I have found zero evidence to support, how would that guy know who's gun went off to start with? Guns don't light up with a bunch of LEDs to show you it has been fired. If you aren't staring directly at the gun, which isn't really possible in the scenario that played out, you wouldn't know whos gun went off. And even if someone was staring at the gun and saw it go off, how does a holstered gun that nobody is holding represent any sort of threat? You think the guy is controlling his gun with his mind powers?
I don't even know why im bother argueing with you because this entire thing is ludicrous. I find it hard to believe you have watched any of the video of the incident at all and came to this conclusion.
If it misfired it likely misfired as it was being taken, not while in his holster.
If you’re detaining someone who has a gun and a gun goes off it’s incompetent, maybe negligent, but not murder to react by shooting the guy who had the gun.
I don’t think anyone can draw definitive conclusions from the videos.
How is that not murder? In your scenario the guy is still innocent and he was shot to death because of ICE being scared by their own incompetence. If someone claps their hands and I reflexively mag dump you on the street, am I not guilty of murder?
Obviously because murder requires intent. It might be negligent homicide though.
There’s a big difference between someone randomly clapping their hands and an agent seeing/hearing that a detainee has a firearm, then hearing the firearm discharge as they’re struggling to restrain him.
> If someone claps their hands and I reflexively mag dump you on the street, am I not guilty of murder?
Comparing hearing a clap to a GUNSHOT is wild.
Ninety nine percent of people including you and everyone on HN would, if involved in a scuffle with an aggressive armed man would respond to a sudden gun shot by shooting the armed guy.
We’re talking about the restrained guy who had been trying to help a woman and not once during the whole encounter had a gun in or near his hands? No, I would not murder that man, and I hope others wouldn’t either.
The guy that was trying to physically interfere with an arrest, and that was now resisting arrest, that you were fighting with, and had a gun near his left/our right hand?
Yes you would respond to sudden gunshots with gunfire.
You are surrounded by people with guns, it could be any one of them that took a shot at anything else. It is a pretty massive leap to assume the guy being manhandled on the ground is the one shooting. That close to a gunshot you would have no idea where it came from sound unless you directly saw the gun firing, and if they did they would know it wasn't the guy without a gun in his hand.
The person who starts shooting him has full visibility of the gun the entire time.
Even if he doesn't realize it is a misfire, why would he believe that it was Pretti who shot? How can you reasonably believe a dude that is dogpiled with a gun not in his control is the shooter?
Again, the officer that begins the shooting can literally see Pretti is disarmed. He has no gun. He watches the other agent take his gun off of him.
A more reasonable take in that situation would be thinking that some other protestor has decided to start shooting at them, not that the guy dogpiled by a half dozen agents and visibly fuckin' disarmed is the one doing it.
I am not a gun control person. I think we'll never realistically get guns away from criminals, and as long as that's the case, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to have firearms to be on even footing. Full stop.
But if we can't hold out law enforcement agencies, however nominal in nature they are, to high enough standards that they don't create the entire situation that causes them to kill someone who was never a threat to them, then they shouldn't be armed. Because we can't trust them not to slaughter US citizens.
Well, that's an interesting take. Even if a holstered weapon did discharge (no idea how likely this is for the specific weapon in question), why would someone suspect they are being fired at by a person with a holstered weapon? Poor/no training is the most charitable explanation.
The only person suggesting the gun went off while holstered was the sibling comment by ‘AngryData’. After ICE discoverers the gun and yells “gun! Gun!” the Sig discharges into the ground (visible in some of the videos) before he is shot 3 times.
You saw the videos, the guy only had a phone in hand, he got tear gased, pinned to the ground, and then they unloaded their guns on him. Stop lying about what you saw, or we'll start to believe you're actually pro-murder.
Phone was in his right hand (our left) and gun was holstered near his other hand. The gun went off into the ground as P320s are known to do when they removed it from him and officers reacted.
It's fascinating how Trump voters are able to reshape their reality to fit the Party's official line. All these years I thought Orwell was exaggerating...
