Search results

Arresting her illegally.

I have no idea. Maybe she wanted a better view. Maybe she just wanted to make it obvious to them that she was observing them. But you are trying to reverse the burden of proof. We do not know that at all. ICE agents have made hundreds of illegal arrests. Maybe he was just peed off at her for...

I am happy to discuss that. It is an interesting angle. Just let me clarify what you are saying. You have accepted that Renee hadn't actually obstructed the agents. And you are arguing that what it comes down to is whether a reasonable person would think that a woman, parked across one lane...

I am using MBK's own words. He had admitted that there was no actual obstruction of the agents. Now he is making a complex legal argument about what was going on in Renee's mind and whether the agents were right to suspect that she might be attempting to obstruct them.

Laughably irrelevant and pointless analogy.

I have no idea. And it is completely irrelevant. The only issue is whether she was doing to obstruct the agents. And she was obviously wasn't, because she wasn't obstructing anybody. Traffic was flowing freely.

The wife is actually irrelevant. She wasn't in the car. Let's just clarify where we are. You have accepted that Renee wasn't actually obstructing the agents. And you are now saying that they were arresting her because they had probable cause to believe that she was attempting to obstruct...

Yes, he is admitting that. We are finally making progress! Painfully slow progress. But progress nonetheless.

How did Renee attempt to obstruct the agents.

It was thought crime.

We might finally be getting somewhere. You seem to be agreeing that there was no actual obstruction.

You have gone into full on troll mode today. YAWN

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Typical flannel and evasion from you when you are ever asked for specifics. A grown up asks: 'In what way was Renee obstructing the agents' A child answers: 'I won't tell you. Because you will just reject them'

Grow up. You have been asked at least ten times now to explain how she was obstructing the agents, but you have always refused to answer. Whereas, I have been completely objective and reasonable throughout this discussion.

Give some specifics.

It depends on the reason. They haven't given any specifics so we don't know.

So, she was being arrested for thought crime. She wished that her car was longer and could block the whole road.

No evidence of that has been produced so far. You need to provide some specifics of what you believe she was actually doing to obstruct an operation taking place more than a hundred yards away.

There is no evidence of that so far. None of the videos show her obstructing anyone. None of the videos show her being told to move. The first order she receives is to get out of the car.

There are two different parts of the constitution in play here. One concerns the right to protest and film law enforcement. If people are arrested for doing that, it is a breach of the First Amendment. The other concerns the Fourth Amendment and the lawful use of force.