Anonymous wrote:Why can't these clowns get their acts together and come ready to arrest with the correct warrants?

That people fear monger because they don’t understand the types of completely legitimate warrants is a large part of the problem.

It's sad that so many here don't understand that you can want people deported from the US but also want it done legally and by abiding by the constitution.

Deport all the people you want - but do it legally. Do it the correct way with warrants with the correct signatures.

Why can't these clowns get their acts together and come ready to arrest with the correct warrants?

And this leaked DOJ memo about it now being lawful to enter homes if they suspect illegals are inside going to end up getting innocent people killed. I've already seen several threats of swatting type situations on X. Right wingers saying they'll report their liberal relatives and neighbors for funsies.

This is a terrible political direction for the US to take.

Here’s CNN video of the raid in Colorado that resulted in the capture of 100 illegal aliens. There were no pink hats there to interfere because it was in a bad section of town and past their bedtime. It was a DEA operation but you can see identified agents from the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspector Police and ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations agents.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/27/us/video/colorado-nightclub-where-immigrants-were-detained-digvid

Anonymous wrote:DP -why do they need to be under cover? The norm used to be that you were in plainclothes for a good reason.

According to Google “Undercover police work, as a structured and organized effort, emerged in the early 19th century with Eugène François Vidocq's work in France. While prior to this, there were instances of plainclothes officers, Vidocq is credited with establishing the first organized plainclothes unit, the Brigade de la Sûreté (Security Brigade), in 1811. This unit later evolved into a more formal security police unit under the Prefecture of Police”

Anonymous wrote:And you keep saying they identified themselves to the bailiff at the courthouse - so what?

Bailiffs are in charge of security in the court house. The agents made them aware of their presence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The feds are going to make an example of these people that interfere with ICE. People say you can indict a ham sandwich and the federal government has a very strong conviction rate.

I mean yes, a competent federal government wins in Court. But, the Trump Administration is losing time after time after time on these government overreach cases

They've been doing a lot better on appeals. The district judges are Democrats doing the bidding of their party and trying to delay Trump's agenda until the midterms.

Ahhh no. None of this is accurate. Not predominantly “democrat” Judges— it’s been a mix. Not doing significantly better on appeals. To the extent they are winning any appeals, it’s on technical issues and the suits are being refiled by the right plaintiff (standing) or in the right jurisdiction. For the federal government, their record is downright pathetic.

To them anyone that stands up for the law is a left wing crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law is the law

What does that even mean in this case? The law isn’t what the bailiffs knew. It’s what the bystanders knew. If they didn’t know it was ICE— with a valid warrant— the law says Trump should sit down and STFU.

Law enforcement isn’t required to identify themselves to bystanders.

Are they required to identify themselves to the person they are snatching?

Yes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law is the law

What does that even mean in this case? The law isn’t what the bailiffs knew. It’s what the bystanders knew. If they didn’t know it was ICE— with a valid warrant— the law says Trump should sit down and STFU.

Law enforcement isn’t required to identify themselves to bystanders.

That depends on the location and circumstances. However, no reasonable jury would convict someone for trying to prevent what they perceived as an abduction. For example, masked men that appear to be kidnapping someone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law is the law

What does that even mean in this case? The law isn’t what the bailiffs knew. It’s what the bystanders knew. If they didn’t know it was ICE— with a valid warrant— the law says Trump should sit down and STFU.

Law enforcement isn’t required to identify themselves to bystanders.

Are they required to identify themselves to the person they are snatching?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The feds are going to make an example of these people that interfere with ICE. People say you can indict a ham sandwich and the federal government has a very strong conviction rate.

I mean yes, a competent federal government wins in Court. But, the Trump Administration is losing time after time after time on these government overreach cases

They've been doing a lot better on appeals. The district judges are Democrats doing the bidding of their party and trying to delay Trump's agenda until the midterms.

Ahhh no. None of this is accurate. Not predominantly “democrat” Judges— it’s been a mix. Not doing significantly better on appeals. To the extent they are winning any appeals, it’s on technical issues and the suits are being refiled by the right plaintiff (standing) or in the right jurisdiction. For the federal government, their record is downright pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article said they questioned the agents. Questioning plain clothes officers is now a criminal offense?!

My thought exactly. I watched the video and one of the agents was a middle-aged guy with a long ponytail, kind of scruffy looking, and a loose plaid shirt. No way did he look like an LEO. He looked like a rando off the street. If I saw someone looking like they were being abducted by a random looking person in street clothes, I would try to help as well.

The agents provided proper identification to the bailiffs in the courthouse prior to the arrest.

According to Virginia public radio people in the courthouse allegedly noticed an ICE agent sitting in the courtroom and two others outside in the lobby.

“At some point, it became pretty clear that there were three people there that were not normally there, and that something was going to happen, although they never identified themselves,”

According to The Daily Progress the two women who obstructed the agents “appear to be volunteers with the Immigration Rapid Response Hotline, a public service promoted by several civil rights and immigrant support groups. A witness to the Tuesday raid told The Daily Progress that the hotline had been called when the ICE agents were spotted.”

These women were called to intervene in a federal immigration arrest. They knew who these men were. Game over. FAFO.

https://www.vpm.org/news/2025-04-23/albemarle-courthouse-ice-raid-nicholas-reppucci-teodoro-dominguez-rodriguez

https://dailyprogress.com/news/local/crime-courts/article_e6ce6e4a-4161-476f-8d28-94150a891092.html

The first story you posted contradicts what you're saying. ICE claimed they provided ID, but an individual from the Public Defender's Office said they didn't. The individual who is "clearly hiding his identity" sounds like the guy who's wearing a balaclava.

“None of us saw any identification, any badges, and no one said they had a warrant, showed a warrant, or identified themselves as law enforcement. And one, as seen in the video, is clearly hiding his identity,” Reppucci said Wednesday morning.

The agents identified themselves to the bailiffs who are in charge of security for the courthouse. In the video they identify themselves as officers from Homeland Security while being unlawfully touched and interfered with by activists called to obstruct a federal immigration arrest.

We'll see what happens in court.

TBH, the two "officers" would not strike anyone as LEO. One had a scruffy ponytail/bun and a baggy pink shirt over jeans, and the other guy was wearing a balaclava and carrying a large backpack with a water bottle in it--hardly serious or imposing figures. I don't care what they said they were--they don't look the part. ICE is pulling all kinds of people into service from other branches of government. There will be more incidences where people that do not look like LEO but claim to be LEO will accost foreigners in public settings and witnesses will be concerned and question their identity. Maybe tell the ponytail guy to cut his hair and look more the part?

Have you not heard of undercover agents.

They identified themselves to courthouse security when they entered the building.

Ponytail guy wore a baggy pink shirt to conceal his duty pistol.

The women obstructing their arrest were called to the courthouse well before the agents took any action because “allegedly” people in the courthouse figured out they were ICE.

They identified themselves as Homeland Security on video during the obstructed arrest.

People get arrested all the time without seeing the warrant for their arrest before they are handcuffed and detained.

ICE agents are not prohibited from wearing masks.

DP -why do they need to be under cover? The norm used to be that you were in plainclothes for a good reason.

And you keep saying they identified themselves to the bailiff at the courthouse - so what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article said they questioned the agents. Questioning plain clothes officers is now a criminal offense?!

Yes. In Trumps America, you must stand quietly while men in black with masks and no insignias, identification, or warrants, who do not identify themselves, grab women off the street. And hope it’s “just” ICE acting outside the law and not human traffickers.

FFS— how hard is it to identify your agency, show a badge and provide a warrant? This is scary sh*t.

Also I am not clear on how this squares with the mens rea requirement for criminal offenses

I’m a lawyer, and that’s my point. It’s not there. For the 95% of people who were forced to take criminal law: In order to obstruct an official proceeding, you must know that it’s an official proceeding you are stopping and not a woman being kidnapped. “Accidentally” criming isn’t a thing. If you don’t know they are ICE and have probable cause for an arrest, there is no crime. This is why LEO carry badges and show warrants. Maybe Trumps goons should try that? It’s not hard.

I'm somewhat confused. Is the DHS exempt from showing identification and warrants?

No. Because noncitizen have the same due process rights as everyone else.

I worked in a federal courthouse 2002-2006, when DHS was being formed. It formed with a “we’re above the law because we were attacked, and anything goes to stop the next attack” attitude— by the same folks who outright lied to drag us and NATO into two decades of war. And ICE agents were frankly pretty unprofessional even back then. Very different from people from the FBI coming in for warrants. Very entitled to have warrants signed, and how dare the Judge ask questions and not obey. And the agency never lost that attitude, and has never carried itself with the same professionalism other federal LEOs have. And because it is that way, it attracts and retains people and leaders who are that way. It’s a vicious circle.

DHS is a deeply problematic agency, formed in a problematic way. And it didn’t really solve the siloing of information problem it was designed for. We’d be better off— and safer— if they broke it up and reorganized. I mean— the current head wrote a book about shooting her dog and couldn’t secure her purse. And they LOVE her. That’s who it attracts. Not that DOGE would focus on the obvious problems at DHS while all the 150 year olds are collecting social security.

Ugghh.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's pretty basic law that officers must announce and show id when asked.

Do we even know if these guys were actually LEA?

That's what the first paragraph of the story says.

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has broken its silence, conceding its agents were responsible for the arrest of two men during a raid on a downtown Charlottesville courthouse and promising that the bystanders who questioned those agents will be prosecuted."

They are conceding it NOW? So, they denied it when grabbing people? WTF? If the men denied they were ICE, how do bystanders know it’s ICE and not criminals if the agents denied being ICE? This is Orwellian level sh*t and gaslighting of the highest order.

In all seriousness, these guys need to get it together before a bystander exercises there second amendment rights and shoots someone they think is a criminal abducting someone off the street. This is unsafe for bystanders and those taken into custody. But it’s als unsafe for ICE agents. Eventually, someone with a gun will overreact.

Let's be real here - ICE is much, much more likely to be the ones doing the shooting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The feds are going to make an example of these people that interfere with ICE. People say you can indict a ham sandwich and the federal government has a very strong conviction rate.

I mean yes, a competent federal government wins in Court. But, the Trump Administration is losing time after time after time on these government overreach cases

They've been doing a lot better on appeals. The district judges are Democrats doing the bidding of their party and trying to delay Trump's agenda until the midterms.

Um...there are Trump-appointed judges who are blowing the whistle on what this administration is doing. Expect to hear from more. Judges are supposed to be impartial and many/most of them take their job seriously.

Plus you didn't complain when Trump pal Judge Aileen Cannon threw out Trump's classified documents case in Florida.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The law is the law

What does that even mean in this case? The law isn’t what the bailiffs knew. It’s what the bystanders knew. If they didn’t know it was ICE— with a valid warrant— the law says Trump should sit down and STFU.

Law enforcement isn’t required to identify themselves to bystanders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The feds are going to make an example of these people that interfere with ICE. People say you can indict a ham sandwich and the federal government has a very strong conviction rate.

I mean yes, a competent federal government wins in Court. But, the Trump Administration is losing time after time after time on these government overreach cases

They've been doing a lot better on appeals. The district judges are Democrats doing the bidding of their party and trying to delay Trump's agenda until the midterms.