Wyatt DC Captain will not face charges in truck incident with protesters

Basically, a bunch of open borders wingnuts trapped this gentleman in the parking lot of the Detention Center he works at and wouldn't let him drive home to his family. So in growing frustration he used his truck to gently force them out of the way, and then drove home. The activists of course treated this like a terrorist attack and made him pay for the desire to get home to his kids on time by losing his job, and then demanding criminal charges too. Well, proving juries in the US actually are still rather reasonable, they just refused to issue an indictment.
Well, that's a very nice way of saying "he rammed a bunch of harmless protesters with a truck."

he used his truck to gently force them out of the way
Okay, points the for creative description.
There's nothing really quite so petty as keeping an honest man from getting home to his family on time
An "honest man" who was working to round up people and put them in prison camps. If you don’t want to be affected by protests against a horrible organization, you probably shouldn’t be working for it.

Also, I can’t help but notice you seem to view people being obnoxious as a justification for violence (including possibly lethal forms of violence) against them. How far does this go? There’s these annoying JW cultists who come up to my house from time to time, do I get to attack them with a baseball bat?

Like that's going to win your political argument or something... This is why people hate leftists, they're self-serving, these kinds of protests just make the protester feel better while turning everyone else against them.

I don't think you understand the point of civil disobedience. If your actions don't disrupt anything, then nobody is going to care about it. I don't support violent protests, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Thats a continuation of President Obamas policys? Why didnt you complain about that during the 8 years he was in office?
Obama did technically make it possible to detain asylum seekers and separate parents from their children. However, this done to comply with a court order. In practice, most migrants who were apprehended were allowed to stay free while awaiting a formal hearing and children were only separated from their parents in cases of suspected criminal activity. In hindsight, it was a very questionable and legally problematic decision, but nobody that concerned because they didn't believe we'd have a president who deliberately splits parents up from their children and holds migrants in camps without basic human neccessities.
and of course the government is underfunded to provide these services because lunatics who want open borders refused to fund it.
People are opposed to giving ICE more money to "improve services" because literally every time they do that ICE turns around and dumps the money into building more detention centers.
 
Okay, points the for creative description.
Looking at the video in the OP, it seems accurate enough. What's your objection to her phrasing?
An "honest man" who was working to round up people and put them in prison camps.

Well, it's not a technically a prison camp (it's more akin to jail or something), but given that the people ICE detains are in the country illegally, so what if he's rounding them up? What's the point of you disputing his characterization as an honest man?

If you don’t want to be affected by protests against a horrible organization, you probably shouldn’t be working for it.

ICE is horrible because why, exactly? Having looked into claims like yours in the past, most issues people raise against them are either grossly exaggerated, or flat out fabrications.

I don't think you understand the point of civil disobedience. If your actions don't disrupt anything, then nobody is going to care about it. I don't support violent protests, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

That's halfway true. The point of civil disobedience is to disobey an unjust law, not just to just be an asshole in a non-violent way. Secondly, the point of such displays is to gain the support of the public at large, not to pick fights with law enforcement directly by obstructing their operations.

People are opposed to giving ICE more money to "improve services" because literally every time they do that ICE turns around and dumps the money into building more detention centers.

First off, citation needed.

Secondly, don't people like you constantly bitch about ICE detention centers are overcrowded? Wouldn't building more of them alleviate that issue?
 
First off, citation needed.

Secondly, don't people like you constantly bitch about ICE detention centers are overcrowded? Wouldn't building more of them alleviate that issue?

That was exactly my point, actually. If the democrats would just give ICE the budget for new detention centres, then conditions for the detained would improve. They're choking the budget in hopes of forcing the release of people. Trump called their bluff.
 
Much like ND, I kind of wonder if it isn't because of how remote and unpopulated it is - not as many people around to witness crimes.

It isn't that bad. Alaska's violent crime rate is admittedly the worst for a state, at about 800/100,000. But Detroit, to show an example of inner-city American urban areas, is 2100/100,000.
 
That was exactly my point, actually. If the democrats would just give ICE the budget for new detention centres, then conditions for the detained would improve. They're choking the budget in hopes of forcing the release of people. Trump called their bluff.

Well, NOT increasing its budget at all really would make it harder to even operate in the longrun

Can even make ICE look worse, even when the treatment is less them being sadists and more that they don’t have the budget for the ever increasing number of ones coming in and are taking awhile to send them back
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top