by zahlman | 2026-01-13 23:28:04+00:00
> You keep conflating the strict legal question with the moral situation.

No, I don't. I'm not arguing the morality of it at all. You're the one who wants to argue oughts.

But as a matter of objective fact, whether something is "murder" is a question of law, not a question of morality.

> I don't think there are too many people thinking that Ross has any worry about being held criminally or civilly liable

Applying the label "murder" to the act is inherently claiming criminal liability (whether a prediction, expectation or "in a just world" pontification). Many people I have seen in this discussion do seem to think there's a case for it (although I maintain that this results from a flawed understanding of law).

> But if we're talking about the moral situation

We are not. As far as I can tell, I have only mentioned morality in order to address your personal attacks. I am sticking to the facts because that is what I am interested in discussing.

Please go through the thread and count the number of times I use the phrase "as a matter of objective fact" or similar. I am being very clear and consistent about this.

> Then no, law enforcement officers should not be able to use "obstruction" as a pretext to demand an arrest in response to Constitutionally-protected protest

The evidence does not show any such thing happening. It is not a pretext, and constitutional protections on protest do not extend to blocking the road. It's very easy to find legal support for this; so there is no reason to make these suppositions about a hidden motive.

> at which point they then needlessly escalate the arrest into an armed standoff

As an objective matter of fact, no escalation occurred. You have repeatedly made a false assertion and repeatedly refuse to even attempt to justify it.

As an objective matter of fact, an "armed standoff" did not occur. That would describe a situation where two people threatened each other with firearms. Only one party to this shows evidence of having a firearm (which is a baseline expectation for LEO), and there is no moment where a threat was made; the shooting was an immediate response.

> they kill the person due to the "danger" of the situation they themselves created.

The danger was clear and present, and your use of scare quotes is an emotional appeal.

Walking in front of a stopped vehicle, while the driver is legally required to abandon operation and exit the vehicle, cannot reasonably be described as "creating danger". That is even more absurd than arguing that pedestrians using a crossing create danger for themselves by being in the road.

> At a certain point you have to look at the realities of law enforcement agency not having a mandate or respect from the people it is working amongst.

As an objective matter of fact, the federal government is legally entitled to pass and enforce immigration law, the enforcement of which necessarily entails expelling people from the country who do not have a legal right to be in the country.

And as an objective matter of fact, Trump won the popular vote (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidentia...) after explicitly running on a platform that included these actions. That is as much of a "mandate" as a POTUS ever gets.

> Can we at least agree that it would have been easy to write down Good's vehicle's license plate, other identifying information, timestamps from bodycams, etc, deescalate the situation by ICE simply leaving, and then follow up later either with a federal arrest (FBI) or local PD?

No, not at all. There is no good reason why they should have "simply left". That would have resulted in the SUV remaining in place, which would have been a general risk to safety and would have continued to interfere with ICE doing their job in the area. The ICE agents were not just randomly milling about the area so that they could be protested against.