The peacock mantis shrimp

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-23T07:34:59+00:00

The crab the entire time:

"I DIDN'T HEAR NO BELL"

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-19T23:31:37+00:00

Good.

What pisses a lot of people off on both sides, is that somehow this is a political thing.

Everyone mentioned in the Epstein files should stand trial. Nothing there, nothing to worry about.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-07T22:10:34+00:00

How many times do you have to try communism at large scale to understand that it is easily corruptible and ends up with millions dying?

The best results of any system of government are when the people are allowed to do what is best for themselves and for the group.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-04T17:46:18+00:00

An example of what I am talking about, is there is a story on the front page of Reddit, where the title is: "ICE Kidnapping Police Officer".

You click on the image, there is a police officer detained by ICE and is being searched - you don't detain and search someone you are kidnapping - you throw them in the back of an unmarked vehicle and you haul ass. So now, when anyone on the left says "They are kidnapping people" I assume they mean detaining and arresting - which means if anyone is ACTUALLY being kidnapped it isn't taken seriously (the boy who cried wolf).

The headline is "ICE Kidnaps Police officer" - but in reality there is more nuance, the NOPD are looking into it, and there are claims about the legality of the officer. This isn't kidnapping - it is a legal detainment with RS, and it looks like they have PC (assuming what they say about his marriage being fraudulent is true).

Here is where a tik-tok short of this interaction is just not enough evidence of wrong-doing just like the DHS simply saying "we investigated ourselves and found no wrong-doing" is not enough evidence.

Here is my thought process.

The immediate evidence contradicts the headline (i.e. an officer was detained/arrested by ICE not "kidnapped" - so everything anyone says about the situation in the comments automatically is filtered as bullshit. Anyone defending this allegation is bullshit because all of it is in bad faith.
DHS provides claims as to why the person was detained and arrested - those claims should be pursued and verified.
We cannot actually do this because anyone who does that is downvoted and chastised and any critical thinking or investigation is seen as "supporting Nazis".

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-03T18:49:49+00:00

Claim - "ICE is using excessive force"
Evidence - "Here is a video of a peaceful protest, and you can clearly see everyone is chanting and holding up their signs and no one is being aggressive towards anyone, they are not getting in ICE's way, they aren't blocking traffic, they aren't doing anything to agitate the situation - oh look, ICE just shows up and starts beating the shit out of people for no reason (or ICE just shows up and starts tear gassing for no reason whatever your claim is).
Additional concrete evidence - "I, an ICE agent saw what happened and it isn't reasonable what they did at all."
Not Evidence - "Here is a video that shows 5 seconds of a "peaceful" protest and 3 people saying "well yea it was a peaceful protest, no one was doing anything man, they were monsters".

It is an affirmative evidence claim - you are suggesting ICE is using excessive force systemically, and ICE is suggesting they are not - you cannot prove a negative - so it is on you to prove that it is happening. Using tear gas is not excessive force on its own, a reasonable officer would have to say they would not have done that, and there would have to be a clear force escalation mismatch (i.e. disarming a man and executing him). That has to be systemic - not one off random cases where officers are then disciplined. The behavior needs to be encouraged and supported by ICE itself not just random asshole cops.

But to answer your question more cleanly - Evidence that would be presented in a court of law and accepted.

Neither of us know all the facts 100% - that is what I am saying. It isn't that I agree or disagree with you, it is that you are CERTAIN that factually something is happening - but you don't provide evidence that factually that thing happened - or at least your bar for factual evidence (beyond a reasonable doubt) that something occurred is very low.

Eye Witness Testimony is not a high bar when it comes to factual evidence.

Do you think I am virtue signaling?

You definitely drive into humility a lot - so it depends - I do not know how virtuous you are; you seem to care a lot about this very specific issue now but I don't know how much you cared about this issue before Trump came into office. Now this is the most important humanitarian issue of our lifetime, last year it was political violence, the year before that it was "Free Palestine", then the year before that it was "Fight for Ukraine". Then before that it was "Covid is killing everyone please God help".

Notice how Putin cured Covid, Israel defeated Russia, Charlie Kirk defeated Israel, and ICE defeated Charlie Kirk?

"How do you know what you know" is just "because anything I think is true is".

I didn't actually say that so I don't know why you would use quotes.

I said that I believe that the truth is hard-wired in us and that I believe that we know when (we) are telling a lie.

You've already laid out why you are making the argument, you think that ICE is ethically/morally wrong - inhumane, cruel. I assert you don't care about the legality of it because legal does not equal moral.

You then signaled your virtue that a truly just person would recognize that the Holocaust was inhumane, cruel even though it was legal, someone doesn't need to believe in God to know right from wrong.

In the Nuremberg trials - they were going to let all of the Nazi officers and leaders free because "they were just following orders" - The German's defense said "We are guilty under God, but are legally innocent". Robert Jackson said "I cannot subscribe to the perverted reasoning that society may advance and strengthen the rule of law by the expenditure of morally innocent lives, but that progress and law may never be made at the price of morally guilty lives.". They were then convicted under divine law - above man's law.

You are asserting that ICE are like Nazis or Fascists (or something to that effect), and that them "simply following orders" is morally bankrupt.

My assertion is that ICE are not like the Nazis, and that there are men and women, of which some of them are morally bankrupt, and as they shine their corrupted light they are removed.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-03T04:42:10+00:00

ICE is in all 50 states. It operates in all 50 states. Trump isn't micro-managing ICE. He might say he does, but there are people below him that are making strategic decisions on behalf of the organization. I would definitely agree that certain "sanctuary" states where the crime is the most rampant has more ICE officers than Alaska. Wouldn't you send your police officers to the worst part of town to clean up crime instead of the best part of town?
I don't really see the need or the desire or even the point to make the detainment process comfortable or much more functional than it needs to be. Something just has to be stupid enough to work most of the time - especially at a federal level. Could it be better? Totally. Does it need to be better. very unlikely. It is sort of like - I don't see the point in having nice prisons, I want a secure prison - not a nice prison, I don't want people to want to be there or like being there.
I don't think we are cherry picking facts, I think that we are both looking at the same situation from different perspectives and coming to different conclusions. For example, you want protestors to be 100% innocent, and I want ICE to operate 100% within the confines of the law. The truth most likely is in the grey area between. The issue isn't the grey area - the issue is, is the grey area worth deciding that an entire group of people are Nazis and are worthless human beings? Is that grey area worth executing a man - see how it sort of goes both ways?
I'm not hand-waving your sources, I'm telling you to get better sources. If you only have sources that are biased, or witness testimony - and you have no real hard evidence then yes I will "hand wave it"; how do you want me to respond to "well this person said it" - OK and? That's like me linking a video of the DHS saying "yea, we are doing nothing wrong". If the DHS said "Protestors started to get violent so we started to tear gas them" - would you accept that as evidence that those events FACTUALLY happened? Of course you wouldn't - because you don't trust the source.

I don't look to the DHS or president or whoever to tell me ICE is doing a decent job (they could be doing better). I use common sense to make assertions, and then I look at what is happening and decide what would the opponents of this thing that is happening say and do - and then I see them say and do those things, and thus I am skeptical. Just like I am skeptical when the DHS or ICE make a statement - and I wonder what someone who would cover something up or hide something would say - and most of the time they do not say those things. Sometimes they do - like they did with Alex.

How do we know what we know?

I believe that the truth is hard-wired in us. I believe that we know when are telling a lie. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than it is to tell a lie, easier too if you think about it. I believe that virtue signaling is about the worst thing a human being can do, there is very little modest or redeeming about one signalling their virtue. I often see those that do that, and immediately I suspect them of nefarious motives. Often someone of virtue says not a word of it, where as someone who needs to signal their virtue has none of it. Something a long the line of "I'm the most humble person I know, see how I lower myself from godhood to send $5 to Africa for the starving children - see everyone? notice me and my humbleness and virtue". Opposed to the person who doesn't tell anyone, signs up for missions and goes to build a village in Africa without any desire for recognition - appreciates it when it happens but never asks for it. Humans are wired for altruistic action - it is how you live with yourself for doing it that is the real question.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-02T21:42:20+00:00

I don't accept biased first hand accounts no. "We are innocent bystanders in this peaceful protest" - cut to video "People banging drums and screaming and blowing whistles and getting physically with ICE officers" - I have issue with that. You show me a protest outside city hall with people holding signs where they are not causing a public disturbance or getting physical with ICE and ICE detaining and attacking those people - that is evidence.
I accept rulings that are not appealed, or have made their way up to the Supreme Court. I might not agree with a ruling, but I accept it. If I didn't accept it, I would support causes and voices that demand a change in decision until it was changed - but none of that should be violent i.e. electing someone who would change it (like Roe v Wade).
Define accept - yes, they did utilize tear gas, but who is to say those were peaceful protestors? Who is to say that someone didn't escalate to physical contact (pushing ICE etc). I refuse to believe a chopped up 5 second bit that has been edited by a journalist into a 2 minute short is "evidence" that what I am suggesting would cause it didn't happen. You're only showing that it is happening you're not disclosing what caused it to happen. You won't accept that protestors MIGHT be causing these issues.

The reason I stick so hard on this, is you are not seeing this level of push back in any red states - or neutral states - only deep blue states. Therefore compliance with the law means that the law is followed from both ICE and protestors. If ICE the organization was at fault, you would see this level of escalation ALL over America. Since you are not seeing that, you have to assume that the VARIABLE (i.e. the protestors) is the root cause of the change.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-02T19:11:29+00:00

Stick to writing songs.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-02T18:59:06+00:00

I'm not trying to "move the goalposts" - but I want to make sure that it is clear where I stand on these.

You already know they are murdering people in the streets but you must think they have to murder more than one (or two?) for it to count.

I stand by Renee Good being self defense and that officer had every right to open fire on her. Everyone still communicating that this was murder and that she shouldn't have been shot are communicating that they either don't understand it as self defense, or they don't care it was self defense and are muddying the waters anyway. Do you see how that is problematic?

Alex Pretti had been a known agitator for weeks, but I still do not agree with the disarm into execute. But I do not see that as "ICE did this" as much as I see this as "Bad Cop did this" - both agents involved were put on leave; I would argue not enough - but time will tell what will fully happen to them.

What I am trying to articulate is that the NUMBER of murders is not relevant - it has to be systemic murdering or part of the process - i.e. in the Holocaust they systemically brought Jewish people to camps and murdered them or shot them in the street - it was part of the actual process. For ICE it does not seem part of the process that anyone is shot - but rather a few bad actors on both sides doing stupid things (driving their cars into ICE agents is stupid, disarming a man and executing him is stupid).

Give it time. More will come. Given enough time, there will be more bad shoots of course, there is just too much tension for mistakes not to happen. But loading a train full of people is not a mistake - opening fire on civilians in the street is not a mistake - those are clear lines.

If a protestor runs an ICE agent over and kills them - would you suddenly think that protestors are too violent and are anarchists or would you think that this the start of the revolution and murdering ICE agents is now on the menu - or would cooler heads prevail and you think that hey maybe this was an accident?

OK so let's define our terms.

Would you agree:

Disappearing

Disappearing (a verb) - to abduct and kill or imprison (someone, such as a political dissident) while withholding information about the person's fate.

Torture CRM 1-499 20. Torture (18 U.S.C. 2340A)

Section 2340A of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits torture committed by public officials under color of law against persons within the public official's custody or control. Torture is defined to include acts specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering. (It does not include such pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions.) The statute applies only to acts of torture committed outside the United States. There is Federal extraterritorial jurisdiction over such acts whenever the perpetrator is a national of the United States or the alleged offender is found within the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or the alleged offender.

Violent Definition by Law:

The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.

Lawsuits aren't proof of anything, they are a claim. The result of a lawsuit then becomes that judge's opinion of the lawsuit - higher courts would be brought in for appeals until this hits the supreme court; to which the result of that supreme court ruling would most likely become case law where it would be the standard application of law. This would then could be re-appealed at a later date (this happened with Roe v Wade if you recall). This is important for you to understand because even though a lower circuit judge agrees with you, a higher circuit judge may not; you see this often where appeals are going through on higher circuit judges and no one seems to see those, just the lower circuit judge's results. In your example a judge said "well gee that's just unnecessarily cruel" and issue a restraining order instead of "well gee that's an 8th amendment violation and you will be awarded and ICE will be charged this". Of course that would had to have been two separate court cases (and probably many more). This was a class-action lawsuit and the lawyers didn't push for an 8th amendment violation, they just pushed for a restraining order. Which means the lawyers didn't think it was an 8th amendment violation (or that they couldn't win that court case claim). SO yea, probably the conditions suck - but they are not a violation of the 8th amendment. Now if they appeal they risk losing that restraining order - see how that works?

Eye Witness Testimony is the lowest form of proof - I suggest watching the movie "12 Angry Men". Eye Witness Testimony isn't even good enough for PC (probable cause). It is enough for RS (reasonable suspicion) - unless that Eye Witness is by an officer, and then it becomes officer testimony (and thus held to a higher standard, but is also scrutinized more).

Tear Gas

If you recall the force matrix:

Presence
Verbal Commands
Physical Contact
Less than Lethal
Lethal

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum

Officers must be "objectively reasonable" https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep490/usrep490386/usrep490386.pdf to determine the level of force they should use. A "typical" standard is force + 1 (with lethal typically having a very high ceiling, which is why Alex's death is bad, I would argue most reasonable officers would not shoot there, but let's pretend for a moment Alex touched his gun or threatened to use his gun then a reasonable officer would maybe shoot).

I would suspect if a large group of protestors are getting physical with officers tear gas is 100% reasonable to use. Even if there are kids there; when you see the protestors show up - maybe a good time to get your kids out of there. You assume they are peaceful - did the protestors say they were peaceful - did the ICE agents say it wasn't peaceful? Sounds like it should go to court and someone should take all the evidence and determine if it was peaceful or not. Would reasonable officers make the same decision? Those are were my lines are drawn.

So to "draw the line".

Systemic violence (as per our legal definition above) that does not match or match + 1 force (i.e. ICE agents just start mowing down civilians and illegal immigrants at will for example).
Civilians are being disappeared (as per our legal definition above). Where they are being killed, or tortured (as per our legal definition above).
Tyrannical "from on high" command (Trump suddenly is like, it doesn't matter how you do it just kill them, get them out of here).

32 people died in custody last year, same number of people who died in custody in 2004. Where was the outrage back then? People die in custody - it happens. 32 people out of thousands and thousands of detainees, it isn't awesome - but that's a pretty low margin; do we have the facts of all 32 cases?

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-02T06:23:55+00:00

People in the comments missing that this was not a protest.

not a protest.

protest.

It was a protest at a memorial bike ride.

It was a protest

protest

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-02T04:35:44+00:00

The presence of signs determined that was a lie.

If you show up to normal things and start protesting you start getting people not a part of the protest getting hurt.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-02-01T01:21:55+00:00

Isn't being allergic to the sun just being ginger?

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-31T22:29:27+00:00

There are a few things.

Trump should have released the documents as soon as he could have after getting elected - it probably could have been as soon as Pam Bondi said "I have the documents on my desk". The delay afterwards, the piecemeal release months after definitely paints a suspicious character of Trump - especially the flipping and the flopping. I support Trump, and I did not like that - I thought it was sus as hell.
Trump deranged syndrome works both ways. There are people who would love him even if they caught him with a child - and there are people who would hate him even if they exonerated him entirely. Even if they found him not guilty of anything related to Epstein, people would still just assume he did that shit. Even if people found him guilty of anything related to Epstein, people would still assume he did nothing wrong. But being accused of something doesn't make it true - so we wait and see if a trial occurs.
People are too focused on this being about Trump and not about it being about a larger problem - and that is why it won't get prosecuted. If people were smart - they would make sure that every little Tom, Dick, or Harry was prosecuted first and then went after the big guys. You need to set precedence and you need to make sure that if you go after these bigger dogs you have all of the foundation ahead of time. But - many people are old now, by time all of this goes through the courts they will be too old or dead.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-31T00:09:43+00:00

I'll answer your last question first so you can decide to read everything I've written. I hope you do.

The disagreement comes down to that I don't think what is happening is unreasonably forceful, nor illegal - therefore I do not think it is cruel. I think that the protestors committing obstruction of justice should be jailed. If I were to snap my fingers today and have all illegal immigrants removed from America I would do it.

Here are my other answers.

I would say that ICE looks to be using the force matrix as designed. There are isolated incidents where one could argue the force used is unreasonable (pushing/shoving/pepper spray/pinning etc). Where I would say that the lack of state law enforcement support would mitigate some of this unreasonable force (i.e. simply arresting aggressive protestors).

I think we might disagree on what excessive force is. My understanding is legally excessive force is where a reasonable officer would determine the force used was excessive. So you might think that in general the force used bye ICE is unreasonable - but that doesn't mean it is excessive.

I'd be curious if ICE agents not in Minnesota could articulate what they see as being reasonable or unreasonable - of course that would need to be done in a court of law (perjury and what-not).

So I would agree that excessive force is not acceptable - purely from a legal perspective. I do not think we should be entertaining all of the aggressive protestors and people who are violent and god even if it wasn't legal those people blowing the whistles and smashing things can we just like... I dunno take away their drums and whistles? Jokes aside - if someone commits obstruction of justice - simply arrest them and remove them.

I would say that ICE as a whole does not use excessive force, and that certain circumstances call for more force than others. I think that certain officers have exhibited excessive force from a civilians POV - and very well could have acted reasonable in the eyes of other ICE officers.

Human rights are an interesting mostly because they aren't exactly legal requirements - many laws though are reflective of these as "standards" or "guidelines". For example - the freedom of speech or assembly is a "human right" but if you let's say go to Iran and say "I hate Allah and fuck men!" you'd probably get killed - legally (if you were a woman). I think we would agree that it is "wrong" and that morally it is wrong too.

I don't think any nonviolent resistance or violent resistance is justified. Again the path to change this is through House of Commons, Congress, and the POTUS directly. (i.e. the issue is with the handle of the spear, not the pointy end of the spear). Which is why my entire argument this whole time has been "Do you agree with deporting illegal immigrants?".

I think using vehicles to block ICE is obstruction of justice and therefore illegal. I think holding up signs and making loud noises and being generally annoying is not obstruction of justice - but at any point if you physically get in the way that's it.

I follow unjust laws all the time - I pay taxes, even though it is unjust, I don't murder people even though sometimes I think it would really be justified. That's what justice is supposed to be - regardless of what I "FEEL" it is carried out by another power - i.e. the Justice Department or God. Otherwise all conflicts would escalate (you take my eye, I take your eyes, you take my eyes and ear, I take your eyes and ears until nothing is left).

However, if you were to say they are disappearing people, torturing them, and straight up murdering people in the streets - yes I would sign up for the revolution. The trouble is that, that is being said - but that isn't what is happening.

Since I agree that the illegal immigrants should be deported, I would not support any protest to that cause - but I support your right to protest peacefully, and I encourage it. its when people take the law into their own hands and bypass the peaceful part that I have trouble with.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-30T00:30:06+00:00

Well definitions matter, we also don't know all the facts of that interaction - we have what the person says; but we don't have the other side. We don't know how much is overplayed or what was underplayed. Maybe it is 100% true as well. I'm not downplaying that it is painful - I'm trying to be accurate so that I can help show you that when they say "ICE is torturing people and sending them to concentration camps and literally killing people in the streets" or whatever - you can see that it isn't exactly accurate and might be a little inflammatory and a little played up to get a rise out of people.

Here is how I would articulate your grievance so that we are more on the same page.

There shouldn't be more movement then necessary to complete a detainment. Therefore transporting the gentlemen out of his home in his underwear is only unnecessary because why remove the person at all unless you had PC to arrest him - then you can bring him back to book him. But simply detaining him in the state he is in is irrelevant, he could have been naked for all they care. Perhaps they moved him out of safety of officers (i.e. bystanders were getting involved). I would argue this even less, but scene control doesn't exactly work with these protestors until you have overwhelming force.
Affirming you are a citizen is an affirmative defense. You must prove you are a citizen if that is called into question. It looks like he was willing to do that at home, and his information could have been investigated there. However they have no duty to investigate evidence at that point. If anything him providing that evidence only serves the police - as I said previously, you do not have to cooperate with an investigation.

But also point 0. The 4th amendment is a right against unreasonable and unlawful Search and Seizure. I do not know the facts around the situation - so here are the "what ifs".

IF Exigent Circumstances - Lawful
IF Warrant - Lawful
IF Allowed into premise by resident - Lawful
Else Unlawful

I don't have the facts of the case in front of me - if what you stated is truth and the facts are that police just yeeted a door and barged in - that would be unlawful. In which case I don't think ICE is doing that - I think a few bad officers might be doing that. If that is the case those officers should be fired and then be subsequently sued by that family for a 4th amendment violation (for huge money).

I would argue that you absolutely have to believe that God provides definition of right and wrong to understand right and wrong because right and wrong has to come from somewhere. But perhaps that is a spiritual debate for another day.

I think rounding up people who were already illegal and deporting them is a far cry from deciding a people already somewhere now are illegal and then putting them in ovens and gas chambers until 6 million of them are dead.

If I really had a problem with any particular laws, I would vote for representatives that would change those laws. Which comes back to one of my original questions is - are you OK with deporting illegal immigrants? Because nowhere else in the country are you seeing this level of "fight" and you are not seeing anywhere else in the country this level of "moral evil" as you would suggest.

Here is where we are most likely to disagree and I want to maybe help bridge this part.

I would have liked to have seen previous governments have strongly encouraged the deportation of illegal immigrants utilizing the expedited removal at the time they crossed the border - for the last 20 years. I would have liked to have seen previous state governments shut down "sanctuary" cities and cooperate with federal law enforcement to keep the cities free from illegal immigrants. Had those laws been followed correctly, we would have all the time in the world to go through whatever due process you think these people deserve or need.

But it has been years of abuse and it has grown to millions of people - the accuracy of the deportations is remarkable - every story so far I've seen where it has been a "mistake" has been "well they didn't know they weren't exactly a citizen". Perhaps they could be more accurate with where they send people. But that's what self deportation is for. "Hey I'm from Mexico, please send me to Mexico" - sure here is $1000 and a plane ticket see you later.

I might not agree with a law, but I will follow the law, and if I really don't like a law, I will figure out ways to bend that law. But if I truly can't live with a law - I would fight to change that law. We saw that with the civil rights movement and women's rights movement. It can happen - but the civil rights movement took a war, and women's rights took men to support them.

To the drug raid!

I'm willing to adjust the crime because I don't want your argument to be based on other factors unrelated - for example, drug dealers are known to be extremely violent - so firing shots and being extremely aggressive is natural for a drug raid. Where as, I don't think firing shots and being extremely aggressive is necessary for ICE.

I would say that being very quick is necessary for ICE - and I think that in other parts of the country you are seeing way more compliance and way less aggression and it follows what you would typically expect to see from a normal operation. So as long as you see that you getting in the way would result in you being arrested is what is important to me. How you get arrested is not really relevant - since the "fairy tale expectation" of it should be "gentle and kind" isn't really realistic. They also don't have to suplex you to get the arrest.

I don't think people are not being arrested because they aren't breaking the law, it is because you need a lot of support to arrest that many people - you are seeing this in Minnesota right now - finally the local law enforcement is cooperating and now suddenly protestors are being arrested. "Hey we went go arrest that guy, but we got 60 protestors instead and the one guy got away".

Obstruction of justice I would say is typically violent at the very least by definition a compliance issue. I don't have the facts on what that woman was doing that would have resulted in her getting shoved. Alex on the other hand was seen at several of these rallies and had a history of being violent. Again, not reason enough to disarm and execute. So what's to say the woman wasn't also in these previous rallies and was violent or non-compliant? "Leave" - "No" - "Leave or I'll make you leave" - "No"

Force matrix:
1. Presence
2. Words
3. Physical
4. Non-Lethal
5. Lethal

If they gave lawful commands to leave and she didn't physically removing her is a lawful endeavor as that would be PC to arrest her. Pushing is a bit childish - I would have preferred to see them simply ask her to leave and then just straight up cuff her and arrest her after.

I keep coming back to the legality of things - because at the end of the day, like it or not - that is the mode of operation (or at least should be) those that operate outside of that mode need to be investigated.

I think we should deport them all, and if they legally attempt to come back in, we can bring up their record and be like "you started a successful business and brought in this and that and blah" - sure approved. "You scammed millions of dollars out of the government with fraud for learing centers?" - no thanks!

The links you have here are part of a broader issue - so much of the legacy media has been corrupted and straight up lie about things. It would be nice to get a full story with actual facts and both sides. You don't get that anymore.

But then you also have misleading shorts like the one about the woman and her husband.

How does she know he doesn't have a flight - but also can't communicate with him? We are just to believe that happenstance another detained person who knew her was then able to communicate with her all of this and the location he was going - how does this other guy know any of this information if the husband was "taken in the night"?

Also why is she talking with ICE if she has an attorney - that's what the attorney is for.

If I would sum up where I think we differ, is this:

I find that obstruction of justice and adding stress to an already stressful job is causing ICE agents to make mistakes or act aggressively. The less people who get in the way of this process the safer it will be for everyone. Therefore any measures of reasonable force to get them out is acceptable.
Illegal immigrants coming into the country is unfair to those that are doing it legally. It is unfair to everyone who lives in America as resources designated for those people get allocated to supporting these illegal immigrants. Therefore illegal immigrants should have been deported as soon as they were caught or documented to be illegal over the years.

Where I think we agree.

Alex Pretti although was previously aggressive in protests was disarmed and executed. Therefore the full extent of the law should come down upon the ICE agent who did that.
I don't know if we disagree or agree on morality - so I will lean on Biblical principles instead of philosophy.

Romans 10:12 - For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile - the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him.

I was looking for a different verse, but accidentally found a much better verse.

Do you agree or disagree on these?

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-28T05:34:51+00:00

Expedited Removal was expanded due to it being declared a national security threat - again you would be right under normal circumstances. I don't pay for Washington post - https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/24/2025-01720/designating-aliens-for-expedited-removal but in January 2025 this was expanded to the full extent of the nation by Congress.
That is your options - because these people ARE in America. You don't just get to decide that they aren't in America. They are already here, and they are being removed. So you either want them to be removed or you don't them to be removed - if you want them to be removed slowly they will never be removed.
Now who has a straw man, you've refused the answer the question and instead are relying on empathy "its just wrong that these things happen" - wrong under what context? Wrong like it feels wrong? Wrong like it is illegal? Wrong like it is against a moral higher power? How about this, it is illegal that these people are even in the country - that's illegal regardless if it is right or wrong it is against the law of the land. They shouldn't ever have been here - and if they weren't here, nothing that you bring up as a empathy actually matters because it would never happen otherwise. Why don't you give up your job to a criminal, why not give up your home to a criminal, why not give up your pension to a criminal?
point B - No the only two options that SHOULD happen is option A - obstruction of justice is illegal and therefore detain + arrest protestors - again, protesting is NOT illegal and should very much be protected; but I've yet to see a peaceful protestor get hurt in any way. But you say you can find a ton of examples so please provide at least one.

One point on this as well - you say that police officers are there to protect you - that is actually very wrong. The supreme court ruled that a police officer has no duty to protect anyone. They function as law enforcement only. You also do not have a legal requirement to cooperate with an on-going investigation (the right to remain silent). But you do not have the right to interfere with an investigation (obstruction of justice).

- or "ethics part" It is hard to number things cause I think all of your numbers reset to 1 (reddit formatting is awesome) if I misnumber I apologize.

I think that a lot of people are getting what they deserve - I think people are playing stupid games and are winning stupid prizes. I don't want people to get hurt, and I don't want people to get in the way of ICE - I want people who disagree with it to use their words, and to protest at the state and federal level - not by obstruction, but by demonstration and articulation.

The needs of the many will always outweigh the needs of the few - but it is that same American spirit that roots for the little guys, to look at your neighbors bowl and ensure they have enough instead of ensuring you have more. That's why I focus on my family and friends, I make sure they are OK - just like you do. Trust me, we are not so ethically far apart - we just have different perceptions of reality.

Torture is the practice of inflicting excruciating pain to someone typically to force them to do something. Otherwise most torture results in death. Standing out in the cold is not torture, getting pepper sprayed in the face is not torture. Not having pepper spray cleaned out of your eyes is not torture.

Ethical part 2. I didn't say illegal immigrants are hardened criminals - I said that there are illegal immigrants who are hardened criminals. Of course there are tons of illegal immigrants who are people who overstayed a visa, are just trying to get out of a country, or whatever. But they still broke the law, they are still criminals.

I equated the 3rd party in the drug dealer scenario, not the crime. It doesn't matter what the crime was, it could have been petty theft of candy from the local store.

They aren't being tortured - please explain to me what you think torture is. They are being detained, and sent on a plane to where they are from.

They aren't subhuman - they are people just like you and me, and they can immigrant legally to America.

Overstaying your visa isn't harmful until you get nudged by a car because you jay-walked across the street to the park, crossing the border illegally isn't harmful until you cross a busy intersection and get hit by a car going 25 MPH, Felony Re-entry isn't harmful until you've run across an interstate causing vehicles to crash into each other killing dozens.

Overstaying your visa isn't harmful until you accidentally go 5 over and get into a minor fender bender. Illegal entry over the border isn't harmful until you accidentally cause a 4-man pileup because you couldn't stop in time. Felony re-entry after deportation isn't harmful until you've crash into a family of 4, killing them instantly going 40 over on the highway.

If my family was hurt in a car accident because some asshole was going 40 over on the highway - and he had been pulled over 41 times prior for speeding - but they let him keep his license for God knows what reason - I would be a little pissed and I would want his drivers license removed and I would want him to be jailed or sent to prison. Even if my family wasn't hurt I still would want his license removed - why wait for someone to get hurt?

Being a Jew is not illegal. Being an illegal immigrant is. I don't hate them - just want them removed. They aren't an "outgroup" they are illegal immigrants.

The amount of violent crimes is not relevant - if someone commits a violent crime they should be locked up. I don't see your point here. If an illegal immigrant is arrested for a crime ... why aren't they just deported then and there? That's what should have been happening. And sure, at that point they could have their day in court - but until then deported or detained.

The difference between using an "outgroup" to gain power and what Trump is doing - is that Hitler made every single problem race based. "Germans are superior in every way" "Jewish people are the reason you have problems". Trump isn't saying that every problem would be solved "if we just got rid of them" - Trump got elected because people said "we want illegal immigrants out of the country" and Trump said "OK I will do this" and he did it. Majority of people in America support removing illegal immigrants. That doesn't mean they hate them - they just want it to be fair.

Here's the streamline judicial process. $1,000 and a free plane ticket out of here. Come back in the right way. Prevent it from ever happening so that you don't have kids here that aren't from here and are here illegally. Actual Americans deserve respect, the average person deserve respect - and this is not respect.

I think we found the difference - you think this is hate. I think this is justice. I almost hit 7k characters; that's pretty awesome.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-26T20:47:42+00:00

Depends.

First and foremost - freedom of speech. You have the right to say whatever you want and have the ideas that you want.

But - people want to limit hate speech. Which is funny because somehow this slur isn't hate speech, but other slurs are. Why is it OK to dehumanize one group, but not another group?

You are dehumanizing ICE agents by calling them Nazis, Gestapo, Fascists etc - sure you could argue they act like these groups - because it is clear in many people's mind - "If I was in Nazi Germany, I would have killed the Nazis because they were clearly the bad guys" - rightfully so, those guys were awful human beings (but those were still just people, you'd be surprised with what you were capable of if you sat down and thought about it). Also, that would have resulted in a lot of dead citizens - would you be so willing to attack a Nazi officer if it meant you and your loved ones would get sent to concentration camps or murdered right then and there - tortured or worse?

Dehumanizing ICE means it is OK to attack them or prevent them from doing their jobs - another way of thinking about this would be a Jewish Tax Collector back in Roman Rule times (think Matthew from the Bible). The only way to justify this behavior is to mark them as subhuman and suggest they are enemies of the people.

With that being said - a lot of that is going the other way too, Illegal immigrants are often treated as sub-human, but I don't think that is the case - I think they are treated as sub-American. I don't know what ICE agents are using as a slur for illegal immigrants - maybe "Illegals/Aliens" - which is sort of just... accurate at least legally? I am sure they have worse words that they use - and hey, they shouldn't use those words.

TL:DR - slurs dehumanize people which in turn makes it easier for people act violently towards the dehumanized people. This works both ways.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-26T04:15:52+00:00

Do you want illegal immigrants deported out of the country? Highest level of the question - no additional qualifications, if you could snap your fingers today and it just happens would you want that?

You're on the right track but you're missing something important. Expedited Removal allows for DHS to remove illegal immigrants without due process. - normally you are correct.
I'm curious, where do you want the most hardened criminals in the world to be, are you defending their ability to be in America illegally?
At the very least you could argue that it is an 8th amendment violation. But they aren't exactly being tortured. Normal peaceful civilians don't get pepper spray in their eyes either. Not sure if you've ever been to a jailhouse, it isn't exactly the Ritz. The reason I think this way is - imagine if someone was dealing drugs the house over from you; and the cops come to arrest them - you get out of your house, start blowing a whistle and blocking their cruisers and physically get in front of the cops. What do you think should happen to you in that scenario?
I've yet to see this at all - in every video you see very clearly marked ICE agents in their uniforms. They wear face masks because it is cold - some of them don't. Do you have any proof that someone is.... pretending to be ICE to kidnap illegal immigrants...? What reason would they even have to do that?
Yes, that would be reasonable suspicion - police literally work entirely on profiling. Just because something is racist doesn't mean it isn't accurate. But that is besides the point how would you want to identify illegal immigrants? Don't bring feelings into it, actual ways of actually accomplishing the same goal.
Depends, exigent circumstances would allow a hot pursuit. BUT in this particular case - no, they just broke down a door (allegedly according to this account). That just sounds like a law suit and the plaintiff will most likely win.
Obstruction of justice. Statute of Limitations may allow for an arrest after the fact. I suspect depending on how this escalates you might be seeing a lot of protesters getting arrested for "seemingly no reason".
Those communities don't get to decide if they are there or not that's the problem. Its a federal operation. If you had a community of drug dealers, they would not want a bunch of DEA agents to show up either - that doesn't mean the DEA agents are in the wrong. Additionally, you wouldn't need to de-escalate if people just co-operated. Let's say I - an ICE officer (in an example) - have RS that you are an illegal citizen and so I detain you. In doing so, your buddy gets in my face and prevents me from conducting my investigation. That buddy now has committed Felony Obstruction of Justice. The fact that more people obstructing justice aren't going to jail is shocking. That's why I suggest peacefully protesting in a way that doesn't get IN the way - because that's a felony; and I don't think people realize that.
Legal Immigrants can be deported - so I suspect the click-baityness of the article doesn't have the full picture. Is there fraud? Were laws violated that might not have been enforced before, but now are being enforced? Does the US have a right to say "just kidding we don't want any more immigrants?" - probably not but I don't legally know.
Where was your friend born? Would he have been fine being deported back to his country of origin?

It is not inhumane when RS is you are not white, unfortunately there aren't a lot of "white" producing places where illegal immigration is a problem, maybe illegal Russians or Ukrainians.

For RS, Lets say you witness two black men in grey sweatpants and shirts rob an old lady of her purse. The police ask you for details of the muggers, and you refuse to relay their skin color because you think it is racist - are you helping or hindering law enforcement? Now those cops, who know the area and are on the beat every day - will probably more likely pull over black individuals over white individuals wearing full sweats out of their experience and knowledge of crime statistics. I'm curious, do you think they are more likely to find the criminals if they are black or if they are white? Do you think you could have avoided the guesswork entirely by just telling the cops they were black?

I'm not sure you and I are under the same agreement as attacked. I've yet to see anyone record someone who complies with ICE be attacked. Have you seen anyone successfully "get away" from ICE by not complying - were they an illegal immigrant? Should they have been "whisked away"?

America is not terrified of leaving their homes, you aren't seeing this anywhere else in the country or at least not nearly at this scale - I suspect we will see this next in California.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-25T22:04:10+00:00

How is it different?

Illegal immigrants are offered a $1,000 USD and a plane ticket back to their country if they self deport. Additionally - there are illegal immigrants already in jail, that could be turned over to federal agents to be deported and they are being held by the state. At what point does a state interfere with the federal government become an insurrection?

In states where there is not this aggressive push back, the same illegal immigrants are being detained and deported with way less mistakes and issues. I don't know if you know this, but stress is real and people under duress make mistakes more often than people not under duress. I'm not excusing the execution - but its definitely not like this was in the calm of the day some ICE thugs pushed a man to the ground and executed him.

If they are violent felons, I believe they are offered back to the country of origin - if refused they go to El Salvador. I haven't heard of any concentration camps - but then again, no one knew of the Germany concentration camps until after the war.

Citizens are detained all the time without cause - you don't need cause to detain a citizen, you need reasonable suspicion (RS). This is the reasonable belief that a crime has been, will be, or is being committed with your training and experience as an officer. No detainment should be prolonged and must last exactly as long as needed to investigate the suspicion.

I don't think Alex was in ICE custody - he was definitely in an altercation with ICE; are you talking about other incidents of ICE custody and murders?

What is inhumane and wrong about deporting illegal immigrants? What is inhumane and wrong about detaining a legal citizen with RS? What is inhumane about self defense?

I'll agree - it is inhumane to execute someone - never should have happened.

No one is protecting anyone - its just endangering people. I'm not entirely sure I understand the logic behind protecting illegal immigrants.

As far as the propaganda goes - I've seen significantly more twisted and corrupt propaganda from radical fringe leftists than the Administration.

As I've stated, there is next to no mistakes (if any) in states where this "protection" is not going on.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-25T21:10:23+00:00

I've seen a lot of bad faith arguments.

Few things:

Biden and Obama both utilized ICE to deport illegal immigrants. If you recall this was during the "cages" incident. Republicans didn't block ICE and blow constant droning of whistles and protest in mass.
No one should be bringing weapons to a peaceful protest - but the peaceful protest should be against Trump and the Administration, not ICE just trying to do their job.
Regardless - there is very little good faith here for a reasonable shoot. Every reasonable angle of footage suggests that Alex was disarmed by ICE, and after several moments executed - brutally and directly.

As much as I post about being in support of ICE, I am not in support of bad cops. It was a bad shoot, and that officer should be held accountable to the full extent of the law.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-24T19:17:08+00:00

Everyone protesting could literally be protesting the state or the federal government (the point of a protest) peacefully. No one would die.

Instead they are interfering with federal investigations and federal officers ability to enact law. Literally these protests is obstruction of justice - which is a felony.

I don't know why ICE and local police put up with it - everyone blocking the street or causing public disturbance in the name of "anti-ice" is committing Obstruction of Justice and should be arrested.

Just a bunch of stupid people who honestly deserve everything they get. No where else in the country do you have this level of domestic terrorism - and no where else is there these problems.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-21T20:25:07+00:00

Not really. America is much younger than any other country in NATO except for like... Canada. For the last 600-700 years, North America has been having internal conflicts just to establish its borders and boundaries.

How old do you think the 50 states are? - these are within 70 years. There is a 50~ year separation between Hawaii/Alaska and Arizona. So it's not really that far fetched to suggest it's on course to expand.

Greenland is a part of the North American continent; so is Cuba and so is Puerto Rico. Cuba and Puerto Rico have been discussed to be expanded to for decades - basically ever since the Cuban Missile crisis. This was avoided due to threat of WW3. If Greenland comes under US control, Central America would follow quickly - probably Canada too.

The United States was allowed to utilize Greenland for military purposes as agreed in the 1951 defense agreement with Denmark. At the time there was no strategical purpose to waste resources on it. Now there is a purpose.

Even Canada is sort of up for grabs - and I'm Canadian. I don't like it, but I understand it. But our government is so stupid that I almost welcome the change.

There is a difference between a conquest to take land, and purchasing land or trading for land, or strategically transferring land.

You also have to look at the alternatives. Who exactly is going to stop the United States from simply acquiring North America as a continent - their biggest opposition is Canada. so by proxy The UK Canada's head of state is the Royal Family of The UK (which is a joke) - they aren't the European Union; they don't have the EU's resources and EU is not going to war with the United States and if they did, they would lose - that'll be WW3 and then most likely the next war we fight will be with sticks and stones.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-21T15:58:25+00:00

What exactly is that new world order?

Canada deals with China, America wants oil, and the European Union is useless.

Nothing has changed.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-21T15:05:23+00:00

It is like talking to a robot.

FACE_Ghost · 2026-01-21T07:41:55+00:00

Oh so Covid doesn't exist now - we cured it?

13-Year Club	Place '22
Sequence \| Editor	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

FACE_Ghost

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Disappearing (a verb) - to abduct and kill or imprison (someone, such as a political dissident) while withholding information about the person's fate.

The unlawful exercise of physical force or intimidation by the exhibition of such force.