None of this seems relevant to Lemon being charged with any crimes. Do you know something others don't which would justify ICE acting against what the judge said?
> "There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so," the chief judge wrote.
The judge is factually incorrect, per Lemon's own livestream recording. ICE is not involved in getting the warrant nor making the arrest, and will presumably not be involved in the trial. The purpose of the activists, and the strength of Lemon's connection to them, is obviously relevant to the charges, as the charges specifically allege the thing that the judge wrongly asserts to lack evidence.
> The judge is factually incorrect, per Lemon's own livestream recording.
Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Pointing to a video is not providing evidence. However, I'm more than willing to watch a timestamped link and read an explanation of the evidence in your words (perhaps several, if required; I just don't want to spend a lot of time refuting this).
Occam's Razor suggests (really, screams at the top of its lungs) this is further political retaliation from an administration which is now infamous for its acts of political retaliation (among other things). Why would they be telling the truth this time? Further than that, why should any of this administration's evidence be trusted after the AI manipulation stunt? (Dismissing false evidence as a joke meme is not justification.)
> Federal charges are appropriate where federal law is violated, and the Supremacy Clause ensures that federal government has the right to bring them.
And the first amendment ensures (er, well, it should) that charges which violate it are dismissed.
> "Protest" actions like this violate the first amendment rights of the church attendees.
They don't; the first amendment strictly protects against government persecution.
> If it were Tucker Carlson instead of Don Lemon, and a mosque rather than a church, and an imam suspected by the right of being involved with a terrorist cell rather than a pastor suspected by the left of being involved with ICE, would you have the same response?
Is this any better than an ad hominem? What if they would have a different response? Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event or the other commenter's messages?
> Do you mean that we should then conclude something about this event
The law is specifically written to protect religious gatherings from protest and harassment (in addition to the abortion harassment prohibition in FACE), so it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested.
> it’s an appropriate question to ask to define if your outrage at its application is based on your political agreement with the protesters/disagreement with the religious group or if you are willing to allow a law to be applied without regard to which religion and which concept is being protested
Just to be clear, this is the ad hominem, which is moot. Even if this is true, it has no bearing on the case being discussed and the question is a foolish one for this silly political game you describe: firstly, it can easily be turned around on the asker and, secondly, it has an extremely obvious game theoretic answer of "yes" because that's the only option to get one's interrogator to continue with the actual discussion. (Thanks for proving the point.)
> If you actually believed the world were as you describe it, you would not be sitting behind your computer on HN in the first place.
What a ridiculous ad hominem. Perhaps they're hundreds of miles away from any of the cities being terrorized by ICE and otherwise have their own life to live.
> They have not used the same force in other states, because the resistance to their presence and purpose has not been so strong as to motivate it.
The resistance to their actions is lesser in other states because they are more subdued. The propaganda that Minnesotans are not working with ICE is flipping the narrative from the reality that ICE is not working with Minnesotans.
> Narratives surrounding this are ignoring clear causes of action that are not in fact constitutionally protected, instead pointing at things protesters did that are constitutionally protected but not in fact related to arrests.
Counter-narratives ignore clear use of tactics which have been documented as intentional escalations, instead pointing at the officers' emotions that were direct results of said escalations.
No, this misses their point. They are organized and some within the organization commit crimes, that does not mean the crime is organized. Hence asking about whether you consider ICE to be such an "organized crime" group because they can be described as (1) an organization (2) some members of which have committed crimes.
> If you don’t believe the criminal activity is organised, you can find the PDFs distributed in the Signal groups which contain instructions on violating the law.
What PDFs can be found and what criminal activity do they refer to?
That's not a PDF file from a Signal group, it's a video in a tweet. Do you have an actual PDF and can you point to where that PDF instructs people to commit crimes?
> Comment above mentions laws.
Yes, and a list of laws is a non sequitur. I was asking for evidence of your claims, which you've yet to provide. Does it even exist? Perhaps. Does it contain instructions to, er, bite off fingers? Doubtful.
Edit:
Reading the table of contents from the file depicted in that video, nothing jumps out as something which might contain instructions for committing a crime. There is no such PDF being distributed in 1000-member Signal groups which instructs its readers to commit crimes.
> That's not a PDF file from a Signal group, it's a video in a tweet.
Of a PDF file from a Signal group encouraging people to violate 18 U.S.C. § 111 which makes it illegal to forcibly resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with federal officers.
Maybe finish this conversation on your own. I’m out.
Not that it justifies arbitrary UI updates but that has a different risk profile. It would be a potentially existential crisis for a bank to (for example) push an update to backend systems that credits one account without debiting another, especially at scale. In comparison, changing the graphical interface of clients which connect to those systems has a rather isolated blast radius.
> If NSA has a Signal vulnerability they will probably use it very sparingly and on high profile foreign targets.
Sort of. They wouldn't use such a client vulnerability but a protocol vulnerability is essential for the data-collection-at-scale the NSA is now infamous for.
> Nowhere in the social contract is it even remotely acceptable to act as a vigilante and respond with violence.
That's not a truism, as evidenced by the word "revolution". If a law is unjust, one is perfectly justified to openly flaunt it and even be proud while doing so.
> The behaviour being impeded and obstructed is not criminal. It is, in fact, law enforcement.
If the behavior appears criminal at a glance, it is reasonable to step in; law enforcement should be aware of this and exhibit accordingly professional behavior such that it does not appear to be so criminally violent. The simple fact they're law enforcement is moot to whether said behavior is criminal, seeing as law enforcement can still be charge with crimes.
> "There is no evidence that those two engaged in any criminal behavior or conspired to do so," the chief judge wrote.
reply