A person who believes the above examples should try to find the videos or other details of each case in order to be sure they are being told the truth.
Assuming that the “carried the woman through the street” is the same case as the video I watched, she was clearly deliberately obstructing traffic, as she wasn’t continuing to drive down the street despite the road being clear with no vehicles ahead of her. She then is removed from the car by force and refuses to move, requiring her to be carried.
I’m here in the ground, I’ve seen them detain people for no cause. Masked agents grabbing guys out of a Home Depot parking lot and throwing them in a van only to drop them off later after scaring them. No charges.
Maybe you’ll be lucky enough to get picked up so you can get your proof.
The amount of credulity you’re exhibiting is incredible given the tidal wave of evidence that there’s a highly politicized, highly funded paramilitary organization of the government that has to date not been publicly held accountable for any of its actions that clearly violate the rights and safety of even the lawful residents of the United States.
Reposting because there is clearly no reason for it to have been flagged.
The claim that ICE exists and is highly funded is not in dispute. ICE has existed since 2002 and the current funding was provided in the Big Beautiful Bill and was never in question.
"Paramilitary" is a subjective assessment.
Anyone being "held accountable" for anything, ever, in the legal system, takes years. Trump has not even been in office (this time around) for a year yet.
The actions you describe as "clearly violating rights" simply do not do any such thing. The rights of American citizens don't work the way that protesters have been implying.
ICE agents are federal law enforcement officers. They are explicitly empowered in the relevant law (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357 , section (a)(5)) to make arrests without a warrant of any person (including citizens) for any federal crime that they actively see happening, and any federal felony on reasonable suspicion.
Which makes perfect sense, because those are things that any other federal law enforcement officer would be able to do, without a warrant, in the same situation.
The Tenth Amendment does not bar federal officers from prosecuting federal crime and does not bar them from being in your state in the first place. It also doesn't give your local law enforcement the right to interfere with them. It only relieves them of the burden of helping to enforce federal law.
Even a Mother Jones article admits it's "not illegal" generally for the ICE agents to wear masks (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/06/ice-immigration...). (Aside from any question of anonymity, in the Good case, the face coverings on agents appear to be fabric appropriate to the near-freezing weather.) Attempts to pass state laws to prohibit the masks are being challenged (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-14/federal-...); I'm not convinced they would matter anyway given the Supremacy Clause.
When protesters are resisting arrest, physical force is sometimes required to enact that arrest. (And it's strange to make this argument about "safety" when many protesters are attempting to endanger the officers as well as counter-protesters and critics.) All the same things would be playing out if you had the same actions taken against state LEO that were trying to enforce state law.
I have thus far seen video footage of the ICE protesters:
* vandalizing unattended federal vehicles and stealing a firearm from one of them
* throwing dangerous objects at officers
* intentionally ramming cars
* boxing in officers on the street
* attempting to booby-trap the area around ICE facilities presumably in the hope of injuring the agents
* repeatedly refusing to leave when officers tell them to leave and there is clearly nothing preventing them from leaving, then resisting arrest when that refusal leads to an arrest
* effectively enacting their own "Kavanaugh stops" (without any legal authority) on other random citizens that they wrongly suspected of being plainclothes ICE agents because they happened to own the wrong model of SUV
* vandalizing the vehicle of counter-protesters while they were stopped at a traffic light, physically climbing onto the vehicle, making threats, and soaping up the front window to obscure visibility (a clear safety threat to everyone)
* running in front of a parked ICE SUV and pretending (very obviously) to get hit by it
* using a loudspeaker at close range next to a counter-protester, in a manner that would clearly cause or threaten hearing damage
And a lot of this directly leads to the situations that they subsequently propagandize.
Freedom of speech is not freedom to interfere physically with law enforcement.
Putting aside the extensive argument that has been made about that case already (and no, you cannot actually discern that she is "shot in the face" in the footage anyway, not that it matters), that is completely irrelevant to anything I said.
(There is also no valid reason to flag my comments.)
If the trajectory of the bullet goes through the front windshield and struck the driver, what location would that place the officer at? Somewhere near the front of the vehicle?
DHS training manual says not to stand in front of a vehicle, so if a bullet went through the front of a vehicle I would judge whether the situation should have happened at all. But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front. Ignoring the curvature of the Earth, if the car was facing North the shooter could have been in Vancouver.
Or if the direction of entry is the most important to you, most of the bullets went through the side window, what position does that indicate? Somewhere to the side, perhaps?
Or maybe none of this is important in the case of propaganda, like I implied.
> DHS training manual says not to stand in front of a vehicle
Supposing that you could cite this, it is irrelevant, because he was not "standing" there but completing a circle of the vehicle to gather video footage.
> But also, depending on the angle of entry, you could be quite far to the side and still shoot through the front.
There are photos of the bullet hole in the windshield and it's quite clear that the impact was quite square.
> Or if the direction of entry is the most important to you, most of the bullets went through the side window, what position does that indicate?
It indicates the result of the car moving during the fraction of a second required to fire multiple shots (faster than a human can consciously process the decision to stop firing, and congruent with standard LEO training to fire multiple shots).
> Or maybe none of this is important in the case of propaganda, like I implied.
This is not an argument and is also not appropriate rhetoric for HN.
> There are photos of the bullet hole in the windshield and it's quite clear that the impact was quite square.
And there is also video from multiple angles with enough detail to determine that the gun was fired while the officer was still in front of the vehicle.
> she was clearly deliberately obstructing traffic,
You are lying. She waited for the pedestrian to cross.
Also, obstructing traffic is not valid reason to be violent against someone. ICE or cops being violent in that situation is them abusing their power big time. So, again, we are back to Brownshirts comparison.
This does not in any way contradict "she was clearly deliberately obstructing traffic". There was a very long period in the video where there was clearly no obstruction to her driving down an empty street and multiple officers were repeatedly telling her to do so, and cars behind her were obstructed for no reason.
> Also, obstructing traffic is not valid reason to be violent against someone.
This is a complete strawman.
> ICE or cops being violent in that situation is them abusing their power big time.
ICE are cops. "She then is removed from the car by force and refuses to move, requiring her to be carried" is normal; if you are under arrest and you do not comply with the arrest, LEO are legally entitled to use the force required to enact the arrest. In this case, she had to be removed from the car because she tried to lock herself in the car, and she had to be carried because she refused to move along. That's just how arrests work.
To the extent that any of that can be called "violent", it is not a consequence of obstructing traffic. It is a consequence of resisting arrest.
If you're locking yourself in your car when you're under arrest, and that car is currently blocking traffic, there is no reasonable alternative to using force to get into the vehicle and take you out. Nothing else will get you out of the vehicle, and you legally must get out of the vehicle. You can't just be left there.
If you are resisting having handcuffs put on you, or refusing to walk along as you are taken to a police vehicle, there is no reasonable alternative to using force to ensure that the handcuffs go on and you get in the vehicle. Being carried is about the gentlest thing that could possibly happen.
> she was on the way to doctor stopped by armed thugs.
This is contradicted by the fact that she repeatedly refused to take a clear path when she was being told to take a clear path and the officers were not in any way preventing her from doing so.
It's bizarre to me that your comment was flagged and killed (here's a vouch). You see what you see in the video. There is nothing about your comment that violates HN guidelines. On the other hand, rhetoric about "lying" and "fascist assholes" is clearly not in the spirit of constructive dialog.
Other people here seem to think that "obstructing" something entails making it impossible to get around. That is just... not how that language ordinarily works. They also misrepresent your argument, skipping all the steps in between, as if you were asserting that people are being shot directly as a punishment for obstructing traffic. That's clearly not what anyone is saying or justifying, including the officers themselves.
The metadata was or probably still is being collected from the notifications on the phone. So while Signal itself didn’t leak data the notification popup was. The sender wouldn’t have a popup, but the receiver might. Thus sending to the reporter vs receiving from the reporter would matter.
Puerile and uninformative, unfortunately. I respect that each of us has their world view, but if the last decade has shown anything at all, it is that when you are in the public square, you are asking for interlocution, not for escapism to be indulged. And the best thing is to do as you implicitly ask, and interlocute.
Storage unit rental went from $90 in 2014 to $110 about 2017, but then was acquired by CubeSmart which is publicly traded: now $241 per month. I know the local taxes and they have stayed about the same all those years.
>I had a storage unit for a while until I realized that the monthly bill was more than the value of the contents.
For every one of you there's a few people using it as business storage and dozens of people who are dealing with living situation stuff (college housing vs apartment, house closing timing, job relocation, house renovation, etc, etc, etc) that trade in and out of units on like a 1-2mo timeline.
My behavioral economics pricing idea for storage unit is to charge $1 for the first month but then double every month (or something like that). You shouldn't put stuff in storage long term and you're getting ripped off.
reply