Pretty simple. These are federal government employees and county sherrifs. People in public positions. It's whistleblowing. This isn't any information about the people except in the context of their public employement status. Very clear cut.
If it was their home phone numbers and addresses it might be slightly less clear. But it isn't. Take a look yourself before asking an obvious question next time.
Look up Brosseau v. Haugen case law. There's extensive precedent for self defense for federal agents when people drive their car recklessly near them.
Note that in Brosseau v. Haugen, the court ruled explicitly that even a car driving AWAY from an agent can be considered an imminent deadly threat, and that firing multiple times can be justified.
In fact, that case was even murkier because the target was shot in the back (versus getting shot through the windscreen into the chest), and more bullets were discharged, and the car was further away!
Interesting way to pronounce "intentionally shot twice in the head through the side window" as "through the windscreen into the chest". Or maybe you just randomly forgot.
Jonathan Ross, who killed an unarmed observer trying to drive away from him, has allegedly completed advanced firearms training and maintained expert marksman qualifications according to DHS Assistant Secretary McLaughlin.
He shot to kill.
And then him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim.
There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable ("alternative facts" narrative non-withstanding).
The ruling itself even says that every case has to be taken in context, and that particular one was a known felon who has been accused of a crime fleeing in a vehicle. As a matter of fact, if you look at the decision [1] you won't find the word "defense" once, only "fleeing".
The ICE protester was obstructing federal law enforcement (felony) and fleeing an officer (felony). It's identical, except that case had an even murkier situation. This case is clear. She's on camera ignoring lawful commands and gunning it to flee.
Last I checked, no one is a felon until so adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Parent comment appears to have in mind either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a felony was committed. So not identical at all — nor clear.
Also questionable whether any commands were lawful.
I am not a supporter of the broad powers given to Federal agents, and it seems likely to me that ICE is overstepping (what I see as) the absurd scope they've been granted by the legislature and judiciary. That said, they don't seem to be "actual, literal Nazis", and I have not seen them "murdering civilians in broad daylight", though ICE do seem to be using the very broad definition of personal protection which has become commonplace (for most police forces).
I can't wait until the comply logic turns around on you. I'm actually drooling for what the next administration will be able to do. We need a new mcarthy.
You seem to want a world in which gangs of untrained, unvetted thugs wearing facemasks and no identification can exit unmarked vehicles with guns drawn and demand that you do certain things or answer their questions on pain of being shot in the face. All while opaquely protected by the state.
I hope you get that world. I hope no innocent person has to live it with you.
You're exactly the reason free societies can successfully go down the path to dystopian authoritarianism. I hate you.
Does this mean we can find out how many Jan. 6 proud boys are employed by ICE?
>> Skinner told the outlet he was working to verify the names.
That name has paticular resonance in the world of conspiracies and government whistleblowers ... at least to the older hackers reading this.
[dead]
Where is the line between whistleblower and doxxing?
I believe the line lies somewhere around masked men harming innocent civilians
It's whistleblowing if I agree, doxing if I disagree, of course.
Pretty simple. These are federal government employees and county sherrifs. People in public positions. It's whistleblowing. This isn't any information about the people except in the context of their public employement status. Very clear cut.
If it was their home phone numbers and addresses it might be slightly less clear. But it isn't. Take a look yourself before asking an obvious question next time.
It's a blurry line that has to do with defending and attacking and is very dependent on personal experience and moral ideas.
If the fascists aren't following laws, why should anyone else?
Look up Brosseau v. Haugen case law. There's extensive precedent for self defense for federal agents when people drive their car recklessly near them.
Note that in Brosseau v. Haugen, the court ruled explicitly that even a car driving AWAY from an agent can be considered an imminent deadly threat, and that firing multiple times can be justified.
In fact, that case was even murkier because the target was shot in the back (versus getting shot through the windscreen into the chest), and more bullets were discharged, and the car was further away!
Interesting way to pronounce "intentionally shot twice in the head through the side window" as "through the windscreen into the chest". Or maybe you just randomly forgot.
Jonathan Ross, who killed an unarmed observer trying to drive away from him, has allegedly completed advanced firearms training and maintained expert marksman qualifications according to DHS Assistant Secretary McLaughlin.
He shot to kill.
And then him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim.
There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable ("alternative facts" narrative non-withstanding).
The ruling itself even says that every case has to be taken in context, and that particular one was a known felon who has been accused of a crime fleeing in a vehicle. As a matter of fact, if you look at the decision [1] you won't find the word "defense" once, only "fleeing".
1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1261.ZPC.html
The ICE protester was obstructing federal law enforcement (felony) and fleeing an officer (felony). It's identical, except that case had an even murkier situation. This case is clear. She's on camera ignoring lawful commands and gunning it to flee.
Last I checked, no one is a felon until so adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Parent comment appears to have in mind either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a felony was committed. So not identical at all — nor clear.
Also questionable whether any commands were lawful.
Show us where it is written that any felony deserves instant death without a jury. You are not making a point.
[dead]
When the subject of such is using their power and position to hurt people vs when it's a private citizen minding their own business.
Don't apologize for actual, literal Nazis murdering civilians in broad daylight.
I am not a supporter of the broad powers given to Federal agents, and it seems likely to me that ICE is overstepping (what I see as) the absurd scope they've been granted by the legislature and judiciary. That said, they don't seem to be "actual, literal Nazis", and I have not seen them "murdering civilians in broad daylight", though ICE do seem to be using the very broad definition of personal protection which has become commonplace (for most police forces).
That said, they don't seem to be "actual, literal Nazis"
Agreed. The actual, literal Nazis showed their faces. These are just plain hired thugs.
For those who insist on Nazi analogies, ICE is SA, not the Gestapo. Another apt comparison might be to Sinclair Lewis's 'Minute Men' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here).
[flagged]
I can't wait until the comply logic turns around on you. I'm actually drooling for what the next administration will be able to do. We need a new mcarthy.
You seem to want a world in which gangs of untrained, unvetted thugs wearing facemasks and no identification can exit unmarked vehicles with guns drawn and demand that you do certain things or answer their questions on pain of being shot in the face. All while opaquely protected by the state.
I hope you get that world. I hope no innocent person has to live it with you.
You're exactly the reason free societies can successfully go down the path to dystopian authoritarianism. I hate you.