ICE misconduct megathread (Immigration "enforcement" in the US)

[grumbler]

So, Americans, what's your take gun-culture wise, how are the protestors with a gun permit likely to respond to this? Will they be more likely to leave their guns home in the hope that will increase their chances of walking away without being summarily executed for standing somewhere, or the opposite - seeing how they can get killed even if they are having their hands high up in the air, will they be more likely to brandish their gun and open fire if ICE approaches them?

That is THE question, IMO. The Trump regime is clearly trying to provoke a violent response in order to have an excuse to implement some sort of martial law. This would, they hope, create some sort of "rally 'round the flag" effect among their supporters and justify criminalizing even peaceful protest.

ICE is building a database of "domestic terrorists" using facial recognition of the protestors filmed by ICE/CPB agents.  What do you think the odds are that this database will be used in the midterm elections at critical voting places to arrest the "domestic terrorists" standing in line to vote?

[Tamas]

Yeah, it's a very precarious position. Be passive and they can implement their fascist rule and they can coerce people not to go and vote. Resist too much and you give them the excuse to do so even more brazenly, at which point there's no turning back without a, well, a revolution, really.

Like we have been discussing, I think pro-democracy forces need to walk this careful balance until the mid-terms. But if the mid-terms fail to produce a Republican collapse, something more radical will be needed.

[crazy canuck]

For what its worth, Tamas, I fully agree with you. Without modern camera phones and social media to share said video footage, the FBI/ICE/DHS would have had a monopoly on the "truth" and the legacy media would have just accepted their version and aired/published/reported on it. Probably word for word like they do with most police and government statements. Passive voice and all.

We had citizens taking photographs and videos of police wrongdoing long before the internet.  We also had something called investigative journalism and news media (both print and tv) who saw their role of holding government to account as being important.



The notion that we didn't have a way of keeping government accountable before social media is frankly absurd.

The combination of those to things

[The Minsky Moment]

Seems to me like two sides talking past each other.

The fact that camera phones are ubiquitous and the internet facilitates near instantaneous sharing of information is clearly a good thing, exposing the absurdity of the lies being pushed by officials in real time.

The fact social media is dominated by a small number of corporatized platforms motivated to privilege the spread of disinformation and slop is a bad thing.

Both things can be and are true at the same time.

[Tamas]

Seems to me like two sides talking past each other.

The fact that camera phones are ubiquitous and the internet facilitates near instantaneous sharing of information is clearly a good thing, exposing the absurdity of the lies being pushed by officials in real time.

The fact social media is dominated by a small number of corporatized platforms motivated to privilege the spread of disinformation and slop is a bad thing.

Both things can be and are true at the same time.

Not really. I am saying the coexistence of these two make easy Internet access (which like it or not various social media is a big part of) a net good. Everyone else except Sophie say their coexistence make easy Internet access a net bad.

[DGuller]

Social media allows us to see some crimes of a government that was elected with the big help of social media.

[mongers]

Well the USA  might be a couple of percent closer to the situation in Iran, masked gunmen executing people in the streets. 

[garbon]

https://thehill.com/homenews/5707075-pretti-shooting-white-house-response/

Leavitt distances Trump from Noem, Miller rhetoric on Pretti killing

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Monday notably distanced President Trump from rhetoric made by high-profile members of his administration in the aftermath of the shooting death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis.

Leavitt was peppered with questions during the White House press briefing about whether Trump agreed with sentiments of Pretti's killing that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller made over the weekend. 

That included Noem saying Pretti "attacked" federal law enforcement while "brandishing" a firearm and saying the incident was an example of "domestic terrorism." Meanwhile, Miller referred to Pretti as a "would-be assassin" who "tried to murder federal law enforcement."

Multiple angles of video captured by witnesses of Pretti's confrontation with federal law enforcement Saturday show an officer shooting Pretti in the back after an altercation in which Pretti, filming the officers, sought to help a woman being pepper-sprayed before he was also pepper-sprayed. Video appears to show an officer taking Pretti's gun and walking away before he was shot.

When asked whether Trump agrees with Noem and Miller's sentiments on the circumstances, Leavitt said she has not heard the president "characterize Mr. Pretti in that way."

"However, I have heard the president say he wants to let the facts and the investigation lead itself," Leavitt said.

Leavitt did not give a definitive answer when another reporter asked whether Miller will be apologizing to Pretti's family.

"Again, this incident remains under investigation, and nobody here at the White House, including the president of the United States, wants to see Americans hurt or killed and losing their lives in American streets," she responded. 

Leavitt's public navigation of the aftermath of Pretti's shooting showed a shift in how the White House was handling the situation, and it marked a major contrast with some of the administration's reaction to the shooting death of Renee Good earlier this month. The administration across the board was quick to defend the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer who fatally shot Good, who was unarmed.

Trump, however, did express notions while sitting down for an interview with The New York Times that he did not want to see anyone shot when he watched video of Good.

"Nobody in the White House, including President Trump, wants to see people getting hurt or killed in America's streets. This includes Renee Good, Alex Pretti, the brave men and women of federal law enforcement and the many Americans who have been victimized at the hands of illegal alien criminals," Leavitt told reporters.

...

Between this and the news that Gregory Bovino and some agents are leaving, is Trump doing the well trod thing of deflecting blame to subordinates when policies prove toxic?

Of course, BBC report notes that it looks like immigrations raids are still ongoing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrdlr70qg4o

[The Brain]

https://thehill.com/homenews/5707075-pretti-shooting-white-house-response/

Between this and the news that Gregory Bovino and some agents are leaving, is Trump doing the well trod thing of deflecting blame to subordinates when policies prove toxic?

Of course, BBC report notes that it looks like immigrations raids are still ongoing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrdlr70qg4o

[garbon]

Not really. I am saying the coexistence of these two make easy Internet access (which like it or not various social media is a big part of) a net good. Everyone else except Sophie say their coexistence make easy Internet access a net bad.

Given that social media arose near to when smartphone and their cameras came about, I think it is hard to divorce impact of each development.

I think we are now also entering a period where we have to be increasing vigilant about what we see given the increasing level of sophistication that AI can bring to video. It makes the potential impact of 'real' video speaking truth to power via social media harder to assess/harder to have an impact as we move forward.