Comment by ClumsyPilot | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ClumsyPilot | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You are basically saying that everybody has to help ICE for free and on occasion do the job of ICE for free. That’s very totalitarian.

At the same time, it is settled law that a police officer cannot be held liable for not protecting citizens or not arresting someone. So you have more obligations than a police officer yet getting none of the pay or legal protections

Imagine you were a private tutor, in a private school on private land. ICE barges into the class trying to arrest one of the kids, but their paperwork is not in order so they promised to come back in 20 minutes

Do you imagine it will be possible to continue with the lesson as normal after such an event?

It is your discretion, when to start or stop a lesson, you work for yourself.

Do you imagine you should be obligated as a teacher to continue the lesson as if nothing has happened?

And if children want to leave to hold them by force?

why is it your problem That ICE isn’t competent and can’t get their shit right the first time?

ICE had a warrant. They were being courteous to the court by waiting until after the hearing instead of scooping the guy up on his way in.

And no, you don't have to help ICE, you just can't obstruct them. Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction.

You're downvoted because ICE did not have a warrant.

ICE prints pieces of paper which they call "administrative warrants." Those were never reviewed by a judge and are internal ICE documents. An administrative warrant is not an actual warrant in any meaningful sense. It's a meaningful document (contrary to what you might read; it's not something one can just print on a laser printer and called it a day), but the "administrative" changes the meaning dramatically.

It seems like there were plenty of errors all around, in this situation, both on the judge's side and on ICE's side. However, I can't imagine any of those rose to the level of criminal behavior.

Sneaking a suspect out a back door while you stall the police is textbook, classic obstruction, but that changes quite a bit when it's a government employee operating within their scope of duty. Even if they make a mistake.

Schools don't want students scared to be there. Courtrooms want to count on cases not being settled by default because people are scared to show up. There is a valid, lawful reason for not permitting ICE to disrupt their government functions. That's doubly true when you can't count on ICE following the law and might ship someone off to El Salvador.

Asking an LLM, whether or not the judge broke laws is ambiguous. It is unambiguous that they showed poor judgment, and there should probably be consequences. However, what's not ambiguous is that the consequences should be through judicial oversight mechanisms, and not the FBI arresting the judge.

As a footnote, a judge not being able to rely on ICE following lawful orders significantly strengthens the government interest argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com