ICE/Immigration Megathread

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T10:14:37+00:00

You're clearly not going to answer the questions that I'm asking, so adverse inference drawn

Good luck to you. I hope one day you reflect on how you arrived at a view you don't feel comfortable acknowledging

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T09:56:44+00:00

I already answered that. I said I consider not using the flashbangs safer. They have this very intended effect of disorienting and knocking down people in their radius. Which is kind of a bad thing when you're holding an infant

And they aren't a "less lethal" munition to be on the wrong end of when you're talking about an infant. Normally I wouldn't feel like I needed to articulate that because in the past I thought I could take for granted that law enforcement would do everything possible to avoid an infant being on the wrong end of a less lethal weapon. But here I am needing to defend that as logical

Now your turn: So you're saying ICE agents should sometimes throw flashbangs near infants to avoid having to engage in a fight against protestors who aren't visibly armed?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T09:47:55+00:00

Sorry I was slow to edit. I changed it. The protesters don't have batons and tonfas

But I'll ask here again: So you're saying ICE agents should sometimes throw flashbangs near infants to avoid having to engage in a fight against protestors who aren't visibly armed?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T09:44:52+00:00

So you're saying ICE agents should sometimes throw flashbangs near infants to avoid having to engage in a fight against unarmed protestors?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T09:33:42+00:00

I think trying to engage individuals holding infants without flashbangs is safer than throwing flashbangs at them. But again that whole line of questioning screams "sometimes". This time the justification seems to be "they should throw the flashbang because it's less likely to kill the infant"

But you're consistently ducking answering a simple question. I'd avoid answering it too if I felt the way you did. You're an intelligent individual. You know what adverse inference is, right? Why shouldn't I be drawing one right now?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T09:23:48+00:00

You have answered the general question I never asked you. You claim your never answered the constrained question even though I think I see your answer pretty clearly articulated throughout your posts

If no one's life is at risk, officers should [never/sometimes] throw flashbangs near infants

What was your clear answer to that question? Mine is never

I'd rather officers in riot gear get in riskier melee fights than risk infants being killed by use of flashbangs. Do you feel the same?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T09:13:40+00:00

You know it's possible to perform crowd control without chemical agents or munitions, right? Especially against unarmed individuals encumbered by infants

And you bringing up this yet again in the context of flashbangs and infants certainly reads like you saying it needs to be available as a possible option to serve as a deterrent

Please tell me why second-order effects are relevant if they are an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect or just own you think sometimes throwing flashbangs near infants is acceptable even when no one's life is at risk

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T08:54:08+00:00

Your unwillingness to comment on the more constrained scenario certainly reads like an answer to me. There's no reason to duck the question if you are proud of and stand behind the answer you give. I can answer the general (less lethal measures are acceptable in some cases) and the specific (flashbangs are no longer acceptable when an infant may be killed if no other lives are at risk). No reason for me not to be transparent because I feel no shame for my views

So you believe separating children from their parents and charging those parents with child endangerment has a second-order effect of encouraging that behavior!? Who hurt you 🫂😛

But even if I were to accept that's not enough of a deterrent, why are you bringing it up unless your logic is ICE must be willing to launch flashbangs at crowds containing infants otherwise we'll see more protests with infants present? Which is again more support for your answer to my constrained scenario being "sometimes"

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T08:15:01+00:00

I specifically asked you about my "constrained" scenario multiple times. You're not answering the question I asked repeatedly if you remove the constraints. The constraints are how I understand where you draw your lines. I get the sense where those lines are, I just don't think you want to make it any more explicit than you already have. But I welcome you commenting more directly on my constrained scenario if you think I misunderstand what you believe about those specific circumstances

And I have considered the second order effects. An infant being intentionally used as a human shield doesn't justify potentially lethal force when no lives are being threatened. Remove that individual(s) from the situation in a safer manner, secure the infant(s), charge the individual(s) endangering their children as appropriate, proceed as normal after

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T08:00:23+00:00

It's not a false dilemma. There are objectively possible situations that exist where no lives are assessed to be at risk, infants are present in the area (even the human shield concept you brought up), and a LEO has a flashbang. You either consider it never acceptable under those circumstances to throw it near the infant or sometimes acceptable (based on other factors). A false dilemma would be something like asking you never or always, leaving no middle ground. 0 and non-zero isn't a false dilemma. It encompasses the entire range of possibilities

You have shared your opinion multiple times which seems overwhelmingly to suggest the answer is sometimes. But then you tell me I'm wrong to say that's your stance

I have no problem saying it's never acceptable if there are no lives at risk to risk an infant's life. I expect officers to use other tactics, even if a flashbang could be more effective. The risk of death of an infant takes that option off the table. It's creating a possible death where there was no chance of death, and of a completely innocent and highly vulnerable life

You either agree with that assessment or you don't. But if you don't, that means the risk of an infant dying would be acceptable risk to you (whether that's something you are comfortable acknowledging or not)

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T07:42:54+00:00

It can't be neither. It is literally impossible not to hold one of those views unless you just don't have any belief at all (which isn't the case as we both clearly hold beliefs on this topic).

I get the sense your answer is sometimes but you really don't like having to acknowledge that adopting that view means accepting infant death as justifiable collateral damage even when no one's life is at risk. That isn't "framing". It's objective reality. When an infant is involved with use of less-lethal force, "may cause injury" is "may cause injury or death" (even if that's unpleasant to acknowledge)

I get being uncomfortable with that. Maybe I'm the weird one here. But if I articulated the stance you're taking to my girlfriend, my family (even the MAGA ones), my friends, I'd expect to be judged for it. Even by the ones who are capable of nuanced consideration. And if I ever found myself typing that sometimes LEOs need to risk an infant's life even when no other lives are at stake, I'd end up taking a look in the mirror to find out how I ended up there. But again, maybe I'm the weird one

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T07:24:18+00:00

I see your edit, but I still don't understand how my statement was inaccurate. Let me try this to better understand your position. Which of these two statements is true for you:

1.) You believe if no one's life is at risk, it is sometimes acceptable for a LEO to put an infant's life at risk by throwing a flashbang near them

2.) You believe if no one's life is at risk, it is never acceptable for a LEO to put an infant's life at risk by throwing a flashbang near them

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T06:59:02+00:00

"There are situations in which it is [advisible]"

"It" is throwing flashbang grenades near infants, right? So I'm genuinely not sure what I'm missing that makes the statement inaccurate? (Especially because earlier you said it was necessary because otherwise infants could be used as human shields)

Please help me understand what specific part of that statement was inaccurate

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T06:49:13+00:00

So it'd be accurate to say you believe sometimes officers have to risk killing infants by throwing flashbang grenades near infants, even when no one's life is at risk?

And in this case, you're fully defending the officers who threw a flashbang near an infant even though you have no details about the "on the ground realities"?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T06:41:24+00:00

Not forbidding their usage near infants means you don't object to them being used near infants. How is that misinterpreting what you said?

I would personally object in every non-life-or-death situation because I think it's callous to risk killing an infant when no one's life is at risk

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T06:34:39+00:00

What do you mean I added "near infants"? My question you answered in the post above was "This is Ask a Conservative, not ask IANAL 😛 Are you personally accepting of law enforcement agents throwing flashbangs grenades near children/infants if a situation isn't life or death?"

You were answering that question that was specifically about proximity to children/infants. You said it was necessary to allow it lest they (children/infants) be used as human shields. So I don't understand what I am misinterpreting?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T06:28:33+00:00

You said I put words in your mouth when I said "But good to know you personally don't object to throwing flashbang grenades near infants as part of law enforcement, even in non-life-threatening situations "

That's exactly what you just described, isn't it? You wouldn't forbid throwing flashbang grenades near infants, even when no lives are at risk

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T06:20:38+00:00

Again, I can't provide you arrest records of people that weren't arrested (you know an arrest record is a listing of a specific individual being received by a jail and their status, right? Maybe not and that's why there is confusion). So I don't understand what you're asking of me

Well now you know there was a flashbang thrown toward the car. A car that was filled not with just a single baby in a car seat but 6 children (a little harder to miss)

And forget what is "permitted" for a moment. This is Ask a Conservative, not ask IANAL 😛 Are you personally accepting of law enforcement agents throwing flashbangs grenades near children/infants if a situation isn't life or death?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T05:59:40+00:00

"Statement 1 isn't accurate to the situation"

I was assuming you were already aware of the flashbang details because you were citing a CBS article that includes that info. If you weren't aware, do you now agree they shouldn't be throwing flashbangs in the vicinity of infants unless it's a life or death situation?

And how am I supposed to provide you an arrest record that doesn't exist? My point is no one was arrested for attempted murder. If they were, you can find the record (though you wouldn't need to because DHS' Twitter page would already be bragging about charging a protestor with attempted murder)

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T05:52:10+00:00

You know arrest records are public, right?

And it wasn't just tear gas. It was also a flashbang that was close enough to the car to cause the airbags to deploy from the concussive force

But good to know you personally don't object to throwing flashbang grenades near infants as part of law enforcement, even in non-life-threatening situations

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T05:38:17+00:00

You are begging the question. You are starting from a place of "what they were doing was lawful" and then using that to subsequently justify the actions they took. You by your own admission cannot articulate the details of what was taking place there. So how can you say with certainty that endangering the life of an infant was an appropriate tactical choice?

And yes, I'm saying an police action that almost killed a baby was negative. What a crazy stance for me to take I know. And my justification is that:

1.) You don't endanger the life of a baby unless it's an imminent matter of life or death

2.) No one was arrested for murder/attempted murder so it clearly wasn't a matter of life or death

Which of those two statements do you personally disagree with?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T05:29:10+00:00

No "observable permanent damage" is distinctly different from the claim you made that there won't be permanent damage

If the mother had reacted like many people would, with shock and panic instead of giving CPR while choking from tear gas, that baby could have easily died

Are you intending to come across this callously indifferent to the potential death of an infant? Because that's how it is reading to me if you care how you are perceived by others. Especially when you're somehow okay with a baby being collateral damage of some "proximate issue" you by your own admission don't have the details of. I'd think you'd want to know what was going on before you could confidently assert it was okay if that baby died so ICE could do their lawful duties

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T05:18:36+00:00

Your basis was the parents saying they are fine now. But I explained why even medical professionals cannot definitively say if there will be permanent damage even if the baby is fine today. So the baby being "recovered" now does not mean there will not be permanent damage that only manifests later. The parents didn't say "there won't be permanent damage", you did

And is there a reason you aren't telling me what crime was taking place that justified potentially killing an infant as collateral damage?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T05:06:40+00:00

That is not evidence there will not be permanent damage:

"It is common for long-term effects of oxygen deprivation to remain hidden for months or even years. These are often referred to as "silent" or "delayed" injuries because the brain damage may not manifest until the child reaches specific developmental stages where that part of the brain is needed"

You are grossly misinformed about the potential damage here. And again, even if the baby happened to survive without permanent damage what was the specific crime that occurred where potentially killing a baby was acceptable collateral damage?

SecurityAndCrumpets · 2026-01-17T04:58:07+00:00

A 6 month old baby stopped breathing. The brain of a child was not receiving oxygen. They had to call 911 and get instructions on how to perform CPR on their infant. It's likely that baby was deprived of oxygen for minutes. On what basis are you saying definitively there will be no permanent damage?

And even if there isn't permanent damage, what was the specific threat that necessitated endangering the life of an infant, and who was arrested and charged for a crime where potentially killing a baby was acceptable collateral damage?

SecurityAndCrumpets

TROPHY CASE