Hacker News Reader

Comment by Perceval | Hacker News Reader

Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity. It was enshrined in the First Amendment as a fundamental check on the federal government in order to recognize the natural right of a self-governing people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.

View on HN

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

…

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

…

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States.

- Some insurrectionists

>What is not something that should be gone casually – or really at all – is an attempt to engage in insurrection with black bloc or globalized intifada insurgency tactics to prevent the enforcement of law.

I disagree. If the feds, or any law enforcement, wants to enforce law that is so unpopular that people feel compelled to make it hard in this way then, IDK, sucks for them. Go beg for more budget.

And I feel this way about a whole ton of categories of law, not just The Current Thing (TM).

A huge reason that law and government in this country is so f-ed up is that people, states, municipalities and big corporations in particular, just roll over and take it because that keeps the $$ flowing. A solid majority of the stuff the feds force upon the nation in the form of "do X, get a big enough tax break you can't compete without it" or "enforce Y if you want your government to qualify for fed $$" would not be support and could not be enforced if it had to be done so overtly, with enforcers paid to enforce it, rather than backhandedly by quasi deputizing other entities in exchange for $$.

[flagged]

Factually incorrect.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-immigration-approval...

> Just 39% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing on immigration, down from 41% earlier this month, while 53% disapprove, the poll found.

We are talking about two different things.

I am talking about American support for a working legal immigration process, and enforcing that process. Not everyone agrees about exactly what it should look like.

I'm not talking specifically about the actions Trump is taking or the job ICE is doing currently. The current sentiment around ICE is very negative.

To me the obvious synthesis is that the Trump-sphere was lying about what immigration enforcement means, and the public is unhappy when they're shown what Stephen Miller and friends understand enforcing immigration law to mean.

> However, the situation has also been significantly escalated by often-violent obstructionists

Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)

If it is the latter, then isn't the blame to be placed squarely on the original enforcement philosophy?

Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.

> Do you think the protests leading to escalations were done simply? Or BECAUSE of the awful implementation? (Masks, no IDs, no accountability, no body cameras, etc.)

Yes, I think there would've been massive protests against the US federal government doing anything at all to be effective at deporting illegal immigrants. Significant numbers of ideologically-dedicated people think that not allowing foreigners to immigrate to the US or deporting foreigners who have illegally immigrated is an immoral, Nazi-equivalent policy that they have a moral obligation to disrupt. The masks and other shows of force from federal immigration enforcement are a reaction to the protests designed to keep individual ICE agents safe and effective; and to demonstrate to illegal immigrants that the federal government is serious about deporting them, violently if necessary, in order to try to incentivize them to leave voluntarily.

> Otherwise it reads like DARVO tactics. If we were talking about a relationship it sounds like -- Person A emotionally abuses Person B to the point of person B pushing back, and then Person A using the fact that Person B reacted (perhaps adversely) as justification for even more emotional abuse.

We're not talking about an interpersonal relationship, we're talking about mass political actions and the authority of national-scale governments.

Martin Luther King said while all should aim to follow the law and obey, if a law is unjust then one should break it proudly and in the open.

Militarized police with general warrants going door to door, going into schools, hospitals, places of worship to detain the dehumanized untermensch is legal.

People loudly protesting and sabotaging these efforts via their first amendment is a far more moral and honorable stance, despite being illegal in a round-about way.

It's quite literally a protest against state violence via non-violent means.

> Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually and without having to protect your face/identity.

I am unwilling to risk protesting against this administration given the combination of facial scanning, IMSI catchers, ALPRs, and surveillance cameras in general. I cannot think of a way to stay truly anonymous when protesting, with enough access and time, you could be tracked back to your home even if you leave your phone at home and take public transportation. I believe the aforementioned technology chills free speech in combination with the current administration.

I’m not particularly worried about protesters being targeted by this administration, I worry about future administrations that could be far worse.

> Protesting is absolutely something you can and should be able to do casually

Then you are going to be identified and your conversations monitored. This is precisely the outcome the article is complaining about. I find that expectation absurd.

> of a self-governing people

This describes the majority not the individual.

> and petition the government

There is no expectation or statement that your anonymity will be protected. The entire idea of a "petition" immediately defies this.

> to prevent the enforcement of law.

How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.

> How does "tracking ICE" _prevent_ the enforcement of the law? Your views on the first amendment suddenly became quite narrow.

Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.

> It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.

I expect the vast majority of government abuses in recent history the world over have to at least some degree followed the law according to those carrying out the acts. Thus it is almost to be expected that as a situation escalates those crying foul might occasionally find themselves opposing the rule of law as described by those in power.

To state it plainly, not all "rule of law" is subjectively equal.

Rule of law? Innocent people are being shot.

Wile I don't think they deserved to loose their lives over it, calling them "innocent" is quite dishonest. They were at the very least intentionally being a nuisance and in most cases breaking actual laws in the process.

So now being a nuisance is justification for summary extrajudicial executions?! If people on HN believe this then we’re toast.

That is not at all the argument being made.

> They were at the very least intentionally being a nuisance and in most cases breaking actual laws in the process

Pretti was breaking zero laws. You’d have to do some prosecutorial voodoo to conjure up a misdemeanor.

There is lawbreaking in that videos. But the felony-level stuff is all from folks in uniform. (Which, thankfully, they’ve started wearing.)

Being a nuisance is not illegal. In the eyes of the law, someone being a nuisance is, indeed, innocent - and to say so is not dishonest.

> calling them "innocent" is quite dishonest

You're not actually arguing that American citizens shouldn't be able to film the cops are you? That would be pretty un-American.

Law enforcement only works when the people have trust in those doing the enforcement.

ICE have lost the trust of a significant portion of the people in Minnesota because they are using unreasonable force, eroding constitutionally protected rights and behaving with impunity.

They are, in reality, just conducting a politically motivated campaign of harassment. If they truly wanted to deport as many people as possible they'd start with border states like Florida and Texas, places with 20x more undocumented immigrants.

Or, get this - they'd go after the people who employ illegal immigrants en masse in those states.

Illegal immigrants aren't a thing at any meaningful scale if there aren't people willing to hire them.

But since a lot of those businesses that hire illegally or "look the other way" are BIG republican donors in deep red states....we can't do anything about it.

We should have made e-verify the federal minimum standard for ALL employment as far back as 1985. We had the tech and the ability.

Y'all honestly think Donald Trump hires blue-blooded WASPs to mow the lawns at his golf courses?

> Or, get this - they'd go after the people who employ illegal immigrants en masse in those states.

This is not economically feasible, the cost of food would double or more. They know that and I know that. That’s why they aren’t actually targeting illegal immigrants, America’s dirty secret is that we need them to keep prices low on certain things.

Good luck finding Americans that will pick strawberries or work in a meatpacking plant for $12-16/hr

We have things called subsidies for that reason. Agribusiness companies of all sizes including megacorps get tons of money in subsides for this sort of situation. Unfortunately, those subsidies go towards purchasing lobbyists, growing profit margins, and paying executives instead of lowering food costs to Americans.

And yes, it absolutely is feasible, and we all know it. It's just if it happened, some very wealthy and influential people would lose a bit of money and influence - we can't have that now can we?

Which law makes it illegal to track ICE? If there isn't a law against it, but you think the government should arrest people for it anyway, then you don't support rule of law.

The obvious retort is "obstruction". Of course it doesn't hold up to scrutiny because courts have consistently held that obstruction has to be a physical act. Simply being nearby, filming or calling them names doesn't count.

Is kicking out tail lights and spitting at agents obstruction?[] Because he definitely appears to have done that about a week before his death. Though that doesn't merit death.

[] https://youtu.be/p2TRbFmutrw?t=1023

I scrolled back a little.

There are a number of local citizens upset at two out of state vehicles blocking off a road while (?) executing warrentless invasions of homes in the community (?)

What is the appropriate action when Federal over reach is so blatent and unaddressed?

It's not as if people there are angry at ICE / DHS for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

> What is the appropriate action when Federal over reach is so blatent and unaddressed?

In a democracy? Voting, campaigning, running for office. Defintiely not vigilantism - or other people will also get to ignore laws that you like.

> Defintiely not vigilantism

So, free speech, licenced carry, local community resisting unlawful warrents, etc are all ok?

Voting, in the USofA, is ineffectual - it takes years to make change and the choices are essentially shite .. barely a Democracy, more a Republican Autocracy by design.

Of interest:

  On Monday, Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, appointed by President George W. Bush, suggested his patience with ICE had run out. After officials apparently ignored his order to permit a detainee to have a bond hearing or release him, he ordered Todd Lyons, the acting director of ICE, to appear in court on Friday to explain why he wasn’t in contempt of court. On Tuesday, the government released the detainee.

  Today Schiltz canceled the Friday hearing but went on to rake ICE over the coals. He identified “96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases” and commented, “The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated.”

  “This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.” Schiltz warned that he would haul Lyons or other government officials into court if they kept ignoring court rulings. “ICE is not a law unto itself,” he wrote.

Letters from an American - https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-28-2026

The USofA is literally a country founded on the principle of not allowing Kings or autocracts, certainly not federal authority, step on states right and self determination.

What would you have do in on any other authoritarian regime?

If the government comes to your house and kidnaps your wife, is your first instinct 1: let them, don't fight and 2: vote harder?

He chose option (3). Kick the tail light out, spit a bit, literally verbally asked to be assaulted, let himself be disarmed, kneel, and quietly submit his head for execution. What was the point exactly? The guy wasn't using any more logic beyond whatever spur of the moment emotional response he had.

I can understand resistance, but whatever he was doing looks more like he had some onset of an impulse control related mental illness.

Two things can simultaneously be true. That the legal criteria of obstruction have been reached, and also that the Federal apparatus routinely oversteps both the constitutional and the most essential natural rights.

Just know the King interprets spitting and kicking tail lights as a 'shot at the King.' Pretti took his shot at the King, with his cosmetic accessory piece gun tucked in his waistband, at about 4 out of 100. And expected the King to meet him with something other than 100 or 0. In that light, I'll concede of the possibility he was morally right, but I also think he was a fool. If his goal all along was to kneel, let himself be disarmed, then quietly accept his execution like a bitch -- what did he even get out of it? He handed the pro-regime a major propaganda victory and the anti-regime nothing at best.

Uhh, right, .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWu7d5YqV9k

> He handed the pro-regime a major propaganda victory and the anti-regime nothing at best.

That's not even remotely true - currently the MAGA pro-Trump crowd is cleaving on gun rights .. the big lie about the need for ICE / DHS is unravelling and now Republican support for ICE is dropping.

Last time around Trump said "take the guns and due process later" and then did an illegal (as ruled by the court) ban on bump stocks. No one following Trump with eyes wide open was under the illusion trump was a champion of gun rights.

People brainwashed or ignoring facts have seen differently, but the brainwashed crowd is already seeing this event the way they want to see it. The MAGA crowd who want to overlook Trump's views on guns will have no problem sweeping this to the side under the heading of "violent agitator suppressed" just as they made excuses for every other time Trump shat on gun rights.

Nonsense.

ICE are engaging in violence, warrantless forced entry to homes, at least two shootings that border on murder, they even tried to force entry into an Ecuadorian embassy.

They are detaining citizens at random, relocating them physically and in some cases releasing them; if they don't die in detention due to lack of access to medical care.

If you cannot see how these activities should be observed, documented, protested whilst still standing for professed Amercian values...

Edit: Ah excellent, downvotes without reply because facts are... uncomfortable!

Here's the sources:

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/ice-agents-blocked-from-... - Ecuadorian consulate.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-u-s-citizen-says-ice-f... - warrantless entry

https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-... - many, many US citizens detained only for charges to vanish at the merest scrutiny

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/27/five-year-ol... - deporting citizens

https://newrepublic.com/post/205458/ice-detainees-pay-for-me... - cutting off medical care

https://abcnews.go.com/US/detainees-heard-cuban-man-slammed-... - deaths in custody

> Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them.

Seems completely reasonable given ICE is murdering, arresting, and deporting citizens and legal residents.

The government wronging 1 person to rightfully enforce the law on 10 is unacceptable.

IANAL but I don't think it's so cut and dried that creating a crowdsourced map of publicly visible ice operations is illegal. Yes such a map could be used by illegal immigrants to avoid detention. It could also be used by law abiding citizens that want to avoid the hubbub these operations cause or by legal us citizens that don't wanna be targeted just for being in the neighborhood. It seems like a decent lawyer could make a case that publishing the location of an ice operation is not the same as acting with intent to interfere with the operation.

>Because the whole point of tracking ICE is to help people dodge them. It's absurd that people cry foul when the government goes after people actively opposing the rule of law.

By your logic, combined with the actions of the ICE folks in Minneapolis, anyone who submits the location of a DUI checkpoint into Waze[0] should be summarily executed?

Is that your argument? ICE has murdered people for documenting their locations and actions which, by your statement was to allow others to "dodge" law enforcement.

Documenting a DUI checkpoint does exactly the same thing. So. If your position is that law "enforcement" is allowed to summarily shoot to death folks who document their actions and locations in one context, then they should be allowed to do so in other, more serious contexts like DUI checkpoints.

Is that your claim? If not, please do provide some nuance around what you said, because that's how I understood your statements.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waze

Reply on news.ycombinator.com