[daseiner1]

ok great, you made it all the way to the second article before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from. Said quote is, appropriately enough, from a woman in the administration whose job is to provide "cover" for her own agency.

and you not-so-gracefully just elide key facts in the same article like: "the agents were not invited inside the building, did not have a warrant, and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present"

&

"the woman [...] is a prekindergarten teacher at the school"

even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it. Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?

[lurk2]

> before you found something you thought you could pull a misleading quote from

Do you have any information not presented in the article that suggests that this woman had legal status to reside in the country, and / or that she was not apprehended during a pursuit?

I’m not putting it past an official to lie about these kinds of things, but if this woman had the facts on her side you would usually have heard about it faster.

> the building, did not have a warrant,

Law enforcement officials do not need a warrant to enter private property while they are engaged in the active pursuit of someone suspected of having committed a crime.

> and were armed with guns while walking into the school with children and teachers present"

Per my last comment:

> The agents, who were armed but did not draw their weapons, pushed other people who were looking to intervene, he said.

You’re trying to give a very particular account of these events that the facts are not supporting.

> even if you think this is someone who ought to be deported, there are many less violent, less traumatic, and far more dignified ways to go about it.

I agree, a school isn’t the place for it. So I ask again: Do you have information that would suggest this woman was not being actively pursued by law enforcement officials prior to entering the daycare?

> Or would you like to endorse masked men with military-grade equipment storming into daycares to arrest women who work with children there?

I could (accurately) refer to this woman as an undocumented criminal who barricaded herself in a daycare after being pursued by law enforcement agents, but it’s completely hyperbolic versus just saying “a woman ran into a daycare and was arrested.” There’s nothing to suggest that these officers “stormed” the building like marines kicking the doors in at Fallujah. As was explicitly mentioned in the article (and my previous comment), their guns were never drawn. None of the three articles related to this incident suggest that the officers were masked.

[galangalalgol]

There are multiple videos of ICE leaving an arrest in such a hurry they ram into a passing car that had the right of way. Unmarked cars with no lights follow normal traffic laws. They proceeded to yank the US citizen driving it out of her car and take her with them. She was detained without access to representation and then released without charges. That is unlawful arrest, and probably reckless endangerment. It is claimed that ICE does not need a warrant to enter a place. The fourth amendment says otherwise whatever other laws say. If they enter a place without a warrant seeking evidence, that is unlawful search and seizure. They laughed as they shot multiple people in the head with pepper balls. Some of them were not even near protests, they were just having fun. The training for those rounds explicitly calls out not to do that as it can be lethal. That is assault with a deadly weapon. If it could be proved they had that training, it might be argued as attempted second degree murder.