Social ICE/deportation protests and riots megathread

No. ICE do not have the legal authority to enforce any traffic violations. This jurisdiction falls under state and local law enforcement.

If a legal US citizen is parallel parked in the middle of the road, protesting and blocking the road, ICE do not have the legal authority to detain that person. Even if this person is blocking their path, they have to either call state/local law enforcement to deal with the traffic violation, or find a way to go around the individual (drive on the sidewalk, or if not possible turn around and take another road).

Link me to where they cannot protect themselves and arrest people that directly interfere with them. They have been doing this so link us to this.
 
They are allowed to do their jobs. It's just that NO ONE is complaining about the protests there. That's why the cops aren't out there.

Come on man.

Peaceful protests are legal and fine. Activity interfering is not legal protest. The cops in certain cities and states allow direct interference thats why the cops are not out there.
 
First amendment right to protest is a real thing.

She was violating local traffic laws by blocking the road, but that is a state/local law enforcement issue. ICE do not have jurisdiction to deal with traffic violations. The correct course of action was for ICE to contact local law enforcement, and then laugh as the woman gets arrested.

She drove her car up to interfere with them pushing their vehicle in a threatening manner.

Thats why they went to arrest her. Again link to where they can't do that.
 
ICE officers have shot a man and a woman in Portland not sure they where a married couple or not.

 
She drove her car up to interfere with them pushing their vehicle in a threatening manner.

Thats why they went to arrest her. Again link to where they can't do that.
Breaking news people on the ground said she was where she was because she was told to move. So before the shooting she was moving off the road and ICE reaction caused her to stop and panic. If they according to people in the area was let to move she would have moved away.
 
Link me to where they cannot protect themselves and arrest people that directly interfere with them. They have been doing this so link us to this.
They cannot protect themselves with lethal force as of 2025 because of Barnes v. Felix (May 15, 2025). This removes the "moment of threat" defense, which is the notion that it doesn't matter what led up to a moment of threat (i.e. the suspect pulling away to flee in their vehicle), only that officers lives were in danger at that moment.

Barnes now requires the entirety of the encounter to be taken into consideration, and officers are no longer allowed to manufacture danger (i.e. "body blocking" a vehicle, so if a suspect tries to flee it becomes endangering law enforcement). That is exactly what these ICE agents did, and Barnes bans them from using lethal force.

As for your interference claim, this is more vague grounds. There is a lack of appellate case law where a protesting bystander was successfully convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 111 for blocking a road that federal agents were simply "patrolling" without a specific, urgent destination. ICE would need a clearly articulable reason why they needed to get to the other side of the road at that moment, and why they couldn't simply go around her.

ICE cannot violate 1st and 4th amendment rights just because they feel obstructed. Parking your car on the road illegally is not automatically obstruction, and ICE should be calling local law enforcement to deal with someone claiming to protest while illegally parked.
 


She was trying to leave they shot her.
 
Breaking news people on the ground said she was where she was because she was told to move. So before the shooting she was moving off the road and ICE reaction caused her to stop and panic. If they according to people in the area was let to move she would have moved away.

If the investigation finds it was true which is possible then the shooting itself would still be legal if they can prove the danger was there even if it was nothing more then panic on her part that caused it. If true their actions caused the panic in a civil sute then I think that would be different.
 
They cannot protect themselves with lethal force as of 2025 because of Barnes v. Felix (May 15, 2025). This removes the "moment of threat" defense, which is the notion that it doesn't matter what led up to a moment of threat (i.e. the suspect pulling away to flee in their vehicle), only that officers lives were in danger at that moment.

Barnes now requires the entirety of the encounter to be taken into consideration, and officers are no longer allowed to manufacture danger (i.e. "body blocking" a vehicle, so if a suspect tries to flee it becomes endangering law enforcement). That is exactly what these ICE agents did, and Barnes bans them from using lethal force.

As for your interference claim, this is more vague grounds. There is a lack of appellate case law where a protesting bystander was successfully convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 111 for blocking a road that federal agents were simply "patrolling" without a specific, urgent destination. ICE would need a clearly articulable reason why they needed to get to the other side of the road at that moment, and why they couldn't simply go around her.

ICE cannot violate 1st and 4th amendment rights just because they feel obstructed. Parking your car on the road illegally is not automatically obstruction, and ICE should be calling local law enforcement to deal with someone claiming to protest while illegally parked.

With Barnes v. Felix in this you are not considered her actions and assuming she did nothing up to this point to create this situation.
If she was just blocking the road then that is something to considered. However I think that was not what is claimed by law enforcement. They claim she used her vehicle to try and intimidate the officers pushing their vehicle which was stuck. She drove up close to them to try and intimidate them using her vehicle as a weapon. This lead to the officers trying to remove her from her vehicle then she drove at and officer to try and get away.

Right now all we know for sure is she drove at the officer making her vehicle a deadly weapon.

Blocking law enforcement as a form of protest is not legal and itself a crime that you can be arrested for.
 
Seems they got their marching orders and the Antifa hordes as massing in certain lefty cities for the weekend. The strategy is to be like the summer of love and galvinize people against Trump, or simply make normies who are apolitical have Trump news fatigue and just want him gone.

Interesting political gambit since it is still very early in the year, and they may blow their load and political capital too early. Within a year after the 2020 election, BLM approval was in the gutter. And the far-left protesters help give momentum to Trump for 2024 since people were were put off by it.
 
With Barnes v. Felix in this you are not considered her actions and assuming she did nothing up to this point to create this situation.
If she was just blocking the road then that is something to considered. However I think that was not what is claimed by law enforcement. They claim she used her vehicle to try and intimidate the officers pushing their vehicle which was stuck. She drove up close to them to try and intimidate them using her vehicle as a weapon. This lead to the officers trying to remove her from her vehicle then she drove at and officer to try and get away.

Right now all we know for sure is she drove at the officer making her vehicle a deadly weapon.

Blocking law enforcement as a form of protest is not legal and itself a crime that you can be arrested for.
This is an extremely pro-ICE view of the matter. Whoever wrote that shouldn't be trusted. She wasn't using her vehicle has a weapon. They drew their weapons on her, and she panicked.

Edit: If you really want to know how much Barnes will favor charges against the ICE agents, just look at the Federal government stonewalling the state investigation. Barnes also affects Neagle immunity. Now the "necessary and proper" of Neagle immunity is legally required to be determined through the Barnes lens of the entire encounter, disallowing judges from using the single moment of threat to determine Neagle.

This is why the Feds are stonewalling. They know if they share their evidence, that the state has a real chance to get manslaughter charges past the immunity phase.
 
This is an extremely pro-ICE view of the matter. Whoever wrote that shouldn't be trusted. She wasn't using her vehicle has a weapon. They drew their weapons on her, and she panicked.

Edit: If you really want to know how much Barnes will favor charges against the ICE agents, just look at the Federal government stonewalling the state investigation. Barnes also affects Neagle immunity. Now the "necessary and proper" of Neagle immunity is legally required to be determined through the Barnes lens of the entire encounter, disallowing judges from using the single moment of threat to determine Neagle.

This is why the Feds are stonewalling. They know if they share their evidence, that the state has a real chance to get manslaughter charges past the immunity phase.

Panic is not a defense in most all situations. If police are trying to legally detain you and you draw a gun in a panic reaction they can still shoot you in self-defense.

Right now we dont know what a detail investigation is going to come up with. However just from what I see it looks justified but we have limited information.
 
These are the Venezuelan gangbanging prostitutes that libs are out in the streets advocating for {<jordan}

 
These are the Venezuelan gangbanging prostitutes that libs are out in the streets advocating for {<jordan}



The Oregon politicians are absolutely big mad that ICE is cracking down on illegal sex trafficking.

That is why the my never cared Biden admin had 300k+ missing kids. The are in on this shit.
 
Panic is not a defense in most all situations. If police are trying to legally detain you and you draw a gun in a panic reaction they can still shoot you in self-defense.

Right now we dont know what a detail investigation is going to come up with. However just from what I see it looks justified but we have limited information.
Civilian panic due to aggressive officer escalating is being increasingly viewed as an acceptable defense for civilians, and not as justified reason for officers to use force. Especially if the officers manufacture danger by placing themselves in the path of a vehicle.

You are simply going to be on the wrong side of history with your opinion. That is how things WERE in the past, but it is not the direction the courts are going. This is what Barnes v. Felix (2025) is about. You may not simply look at the fact that officers were in danger: You must take the totality of the circumstances, and consider whether the officers did anything wrong to put themselves in danger.

If the Feds eventually turn over their evidence, I expect state manslaughter charges will be filed. It will then be very interesting to see if Supremacy immunity (Neagle) is granted.
 


10 agents v 1.
The need to be confrontational, antagonizing, agitated, flustered, unprofessional.

The longer video is even more amusing when you realize these agents are supposed to be the pinnacle of professional US government law enforcement lol. Reminds me of some fellas in high school that you knew weren't going anywhere in life tbh
 


Lmao they got cooked hard (as the kids say). Whether you're an ICE defender or not, this shit is embarrassing, 10v1 and still getting roasted by the dude with broken english.

No wonder they mask up, they can't even outwit a goofy somali dude
 
Back
Top