Subject: Re: STOP ENGAGING WITH FASCISTS
"ICE is law enforcement. Period. There's no meaningful distinction between ICE and your local police department."

Not quite. (You seem to share the progressive habit of interpreting what conservatives believe by incomplete if not totally false attribution, although not always to the extent of the utter leftist nut jobs who post here.)

Many conservatives believe that there IS a distinction between federal law enforcement and local police departments. Because of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, federal law takes precedence over local law in many instances. One example would be that possession of marijuana remains a federal crime, although local authorities in many states no longer enforce federal marijuana laws. Nevertheless, if caught with marijuana on federal property within a state's boundaries, technically you will be subject to federal law, not state law.

Further, is completely irresponsible and probably illegal for state officials such as Frey, Walz, and others in Minnesota to advocate for residents of the state to interfere with federal law enforcement officers attempting to enforce federal laws in those states.

"These arrests are need for public safety." First, you don't specify "which" arrests? In any event, it is not just a subjective issue of what they are "needed" for because that's just a matter of opinion. It's whether or not the arrests are PERMITTED by law. If PERMITTED by law then it is up to the LEO's discretionary execution of the policy of his or her department.

Citizens and non-citizens who interfere with ICE operations are subject to detention and possibly arrest. Which is exactly the same principle that applies when citizens or non-citizens interfere with local LEOs. There is NO requirement that said detention/arrest be necessary for "public safety." If the person being detained or arrested is interfering with the LEO's performance of duty, even if there is no "public safety" issue involved, then it is a proper use of LEO powers to detain and/or arrest said person.

Illegal aliens are subject to detention and/or arrest. Again, this does not require an issue of "public safety" to justify the detention/arrest.

For the most part if crowds of rioting people are interfering with ICE or ANY LEO operation, state, local, or federal, most conservatives will understand that detention and/or arrest is fully within the discretionary authorities of LEOs on the scene. Conservatives will also generally agree that a U.S. citizen who believes they were improperly arrested or detained would be entitled to their day in court. Different standards apply to illegal aliens especially those with existing deportation orders.

"The protests aren't an act of conscience. They're an act of obstruction." Again you sort of create a straw man by mashing everything together. Is this habit of yours deliberate, i.e., you wish to seem reasonable but by misstating your adversaries true opinions, you really aren't? In any event, no conservative denies the right of U.S. citizens to peacefully protest in a manner which does not interfere with the LEOs. I am sure most of the protestors were peaceful. The problem is not the peaceful protestors, it is those who ARE obstructing, like Renee Good or Alex Pretti.

Have you heard any conservative complain about the many thousands of peaceful protestors in Minneapolis who SOMEHOW, SOMEWAY, made their view heard WITHOUT INTERFERING with ICE; WITHOUT DRIVING THEIR SUV at an officer; WITHOUT getting into a street brawl with several ICE officers?

No, you haven't.

Just like conservatives don't object to politicians voicing opposition to Trump's immigration policies, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T actively encourage the residents of their state, both legal and illegal, to actively interfere with ICE operations. Peacefully voicing opposition to Trump's immigration policies is JUST FINE. YOU WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE ELECTIONS, or WIN them, based on whether the electorate agrees or disagrees with those positions.

"The shooting of Renee Good was self-defense." Not quite. Conservatives believe that it was plausibly a justifiable use of deadly physical force; but that Ms. Good (and her lesbian lover Becca DRIVE BABY DRIVE) certainly instigated the entire situation, unnecessarily. Conservatives believe that if you are foolish enough to rev your SUV up and drive it at an LEO who is standing directly in front of it, or close enough to be at hazard depending upon your immediate actions with the vehicle, you are placing yourself at unnecessary risk. Conservatives believe the Minnesota populace was deliberately stirred up to interfere with ICE operations and that if you are going to encourage thousands of similar confrontations then you as the Dem politicians who are encouraging this bear both moral and legal responsibility for any unfortunate or unforeseen consequences of your actions.

As I have said repeatedly here, this really has nothing to do with ICE. It has to do with basic common sense, which many of you on the Left seem to be totally lacking in.

I will repeat my challenge: Try it. Run a red light, drive above the speed limit, speed through a work zone where a police officer is directing traffic. When the officer signals you to pull over and get out of your car, refuse to cooperate. If the officer should happen to position himself in front of your vehicle, gun your engine and attempt to drive away, after striking the officer.

Doesn't need to be Minnesota, doesn't need to be federal LEO, you can try this in your local community. You will definitely end up in jail and you may wind up dead.

Further, the ICE officer who shot Good hasn't been charged with a crime yet. Assuming that ever happens, that officer is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the Rule of Law which the Left claims to care about, that officer is PRESUMED INNOCENT.

I think most conservatives would agree with that presumption of innocence, at a minimum. Additionally, even if the officer in question acted illegally, it was not an "execution" nor was it "murder." Most likely if guilty of anything it would criminally negligent homicide or reckless endangerment. Again however for now the officer is innocent of any crime at all.

"Democratic leaders are politicizing public safety." No, on the contrary, Democratic leaders are deliberately endangering public safety, and trying to take political advantage of the chaos they are advocating.

"Conservatives are not pretending." WTF does that even mean? No, the country won't end if immigration laws are not enforced. But we have those laws for a reason, and elected a president because of his promise to enforce those law. So why would we be in agreement that state officials and radical leftists should defy DEMOCRACY, especially when they claim to believe in the Rule of Law? This b.s. doesn't make much sense to Conservatives and it's just one of the reasons we think you guys are cynical liars and/or batshit crazy and/or both.

STOP characterizing everything in the stupid Manichaen way that delusional leftists insist on doing. You're an angel or a Nazi.

We get it. You have to do that because you're psychologically impaired and have borderline personality disorder or something.

I mean why else would someone drive an SUV at an LEO? Why else would someone try to pick up a flash bang with their bare hands?

You guys are disconnected from reality.

That's what Conservatives think.