Whistleblower drops 'largest ever' ICE leak to unmask agents(vechron.com)
64 pointsby GeorgeWoff2521 days ago5 comments
  • tietjens21 days ago
    Does this mean we can find out how many Jan. 6 proud boys are employed by ICE?
  • 21 days ago
    undefined
  • sandworm10121 days ago
    >> Skinner told the outlet he was working to verify the names.

    That name has paticular resonance in the world of conspiracies and government whistleblowers ... at least to the older hackers reading this.

  • akg13052221 days ago
    [dead]
  • Simulacra21 days ago
    Where is the line between whistleblower and doxxing?
    • superkuh21 days ago
      Pretty simple. These are federal government employees and county sherrifs. People in public positions. It's whistleblowing. This isn't any information about the people except in the context of their public employement status. Very clear cut.

      If it was their home phone numbers and addresses it might be slightly less clear. But it isn't. Take a look yourself before asking an obvious question next time.

    • Havoc21 days ago
      I believe the line lies somewhere around masked men harming innocent civilians
    • goatlover21 days ago
      No other LE agency needs masks and refuses to show badges and warrants when asked. So fuck ice and their privacy concerns. They deserved to be doxxed.
    • mktk100120 days ago
      You can find all the professors employed by a public university and their salary. How is ice any different when it comes to accountability for public funds?
    • jjav20 days ago
      Very simple: when the government is acting illegally (violating the constitution, laws, and court orders), anything you can do to expose them is whistleblowing.

      doxxing OTOH is when you try to get an innocent person to be attacked by law enforcement on some fabricated reason.

    • zetanor21 days ago
      It's whistleblowing if I agree, doxing if I disagree, of course.
    • BadBadJellyBean21 days ago
      It's a blurry line that has to do with defending and attacking and is very dependent on personal experience and moral ideas.
    • estimator729221 days ago
      When the subject of such is using their power and position to hurt people vs when it's a private citizen minding their own business.

      Don't apologize for actual, literal Nazis murdering civilians in broad daylight.

      • nickff21 days ago
        I am not a supporter of the broad powers given to Federal agents, and it seems likely to me that ICE is overstepping (what I see as) the absurd scope they've been granted by the legislature and judiciary. That said, they don't seem to be "actual, literal Nazis", and I have not seen them "murdering civilians in broad daylight", though ICE do seem to be using the very broad definition of personal protection which has become commonplace (for most police forces).
        • CamperBob221 days ago
          That said, they don't seem to be "actual, literal Nazis"

          Agreed. The actual, literal Nazis showed their faces. These are just plain hired thugs.

          For those who insist on Nazi analogies, ICE is SA, not the Gestapo. Another apt comparison might be to Sinclair Lewis's 'Minute Men' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here).

      • DaSHacka21 days ago
        [flagged]
        • asacrowflies21 days ago
          I can't wait until the comply logic turns around on you. I'm actually drooling for what the next administration will be able to do. We need a new mcarthy.
          • DaSHacka20 days ago
            I've already seen it, especially surrounding J6 prosecutions and COVID restrictions/requirements. It's rather you who's throwing the hissy fit when the shoe is on the other foot now.
            • asacrowflies19 days ago
              [flagged]
              • DaSHacka19 days ago
                [flagged]
                • asacrowflies19 days ago
                  Prosecution under the law is not murder. But to expect the current murderous administration to continue it's action without violent reprisal is childishly naive.

                  Specifically us code title 18 section 2381-2385

                  And UCMJ articles 94. 134. 106a and dozens more .

        • gspr21 days ago
          You seem to want a world in which gangs of untrained, unvetted thugs wearing facemasks and no identification can exit unmarked vehicles with guns drawn and demand that you do certain things or answer their questions on pain of being shot in the face. All while opaquely protected by the state.

          I hope you get that world. I hope no innocent person has to live it with you.

          You're exactly the reason free societies can successfully go down the path to dystopian authoritarianism. I hate you.

          • DaSHacka20 days ago
            > You seem to want a world in which gangs of untrained, unvetted thugs wearing facemasks and no identification can exit unmarked vehicles with guns drawn and demand that you do certain things or answer their questions on pain of being shot in the face. All while opaquely protected by the state.

            And if they weren't wearing masks, you, and people like you, would be the first ones running to publicize their names and ruin or outright end their lives.

            > I hope you get that world. I hope no innocent person has to live it with you.

            Lol, I already experience it with TSA every time I want to fly, and somehow we all decided that was okay. This is no worse than that.

            > You're exactly the reason free societies can successfully go down the path to dystopian authoritarianism.

            Right, we all know free societies are defined by being completely lawless with no law enforcement whatsoever. Ask all those free societies in the Middle East what they think about living in the midst of a power vacuum! I'm sure they love it.

            > I hate you.

            uhh, cry about it, I guess? I don't particularly like people like you either, but I can't say I feel strongly enough to even consider it hate. I guess it's closest to some combination of 'pity' and 'annoyance'.

            Also, you should take a moment to familiarize yourself with HN's rules: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

            • gspr18 days ago
              > And if they weren't wearing masks, you, and people like you, would be the first ones running to publicize their names and ruin or outright end their lives.

              So you want the police to be secret. A sort of… secret police? Got it!

              > Lol, I already experience it with TSA every time I want to fly, and somehow we all decided that was okay. This is no worse than that.

              How often does the TSA arrest, rendition, or kill, people? And nomatter whether we decide that flying is a right or a privilege, I'm sure we can agree that it's a very small part of life compared to all the other parts, right? The parts that Trump's secret police are claiming jurisdiction over. Ok, good. So it's literally A LOT WORSE THAN THAT! Jesus.

              > Right, we all know free societies are defined by being completely lawless with no law enforcement whatsoever. Ask all those free societies in the Middle East what they think about living in the midst of a power vacuum! I'm sure they love it.

              Huh? You can't seriously thing that anyone will buy that this follows. Please at least _try_ when you're misrepresenting my views.

              > uhh, cry about it, I guess?

              Ah yes, the trumpian response. Fantastic.

    • captainvaqina21 days ago
      If the fascists aren't following laws, why should anyone else?
      • Miguel5521 days ago
        [dead]
      • 0xy21 days ago
        Look up Brosseau v. Haugen case law. There's extensive precedent for self defense for federal agents when people drive their car recklessly near them.

        Note that in Brosseau v. Haugen, the court ruled explicitly that even a car driving AWAY from an agent can be considered an imminent deadly threat, and that firing multiple times can be justified.

        In fact, that case was even murkier because the target was shot in the back (versus getting shot through the windscreen into the chest), and more bullets were discharged, and the car was further away!

        • subscribed21 days ago
          Interesting way to pronounce "intentionally shot twice in the head through the side window" as "through the windscreen into the chest". Or maybe you just randomly forgot.

          Jonathan Ross, who killed an unarmed observer trying to drive away from him, has allegedly completed advanced firearms training and maintained expert marksman qualifications according to DHS Assistant Secretary McLaughlin.

          He shot to kill.

          And then him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim.

          There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable ("alternative facts" narrative non-withstanding).

          • 0xy20 days ago
            Are you claiming he did not shoot her in the chest through the windscreen? Patently ridiculous claim, there's clear evidence showing that this was the case. Unambiguously, the first shot was fired through the windscreen. Later, in a medical release, we learned that 3 bullets hit her. Meaning, the first shot through the windscreen hit her in the chest. Pretty blatantly obvious.

            >him and his pals barred a doctor from trying to help the victim

            Do you think police should allow a random guy claiming to be a doctor into an active crime scene to tamper with evidence? Or wait for an actual paramedic to show up? Not that it means absolutely anything at all, because given she was shot three times, twice in the chest, she was absolutely dead and there was no saving her, especially not by a random physician.

            >There's so many videos from all angles it's really undisputable

            You'll dispute the fact she hit him, though. Despite the evidence.

            https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/experts-analyze-new-v...

            "Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent."

            "That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.

        • reanimus21 days ago
          The ruling itself even says that every case has to be taken in context, and that particular one was a known felon who has been accused of a crime fleeing in a vehicle. As a matter of fact, if you look at the decision [1] you won't find the word "defense" once, only "fleeing".

          1: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1261.ZPC.html

          • 0xy21 days ago
            [flagged]
            • treetalker21 days ago
              Last I checked, no one is a felon until so adjudicated by a court of competent jurisdiction.

              Parent comment appears to have in mind either reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a felony was committed. So not identical at all — nor clear.

              Also questionable whether any commands were lawful.

            • backscratches21 days ago
              Show us where it is written that any felony deserves instant death without a jury. You are not making a point.
            • goatlover21 days ago
              No it's not. See the most recent NY Times article where they analyze the shooting from every available angle, and it's clear Agent Ross was not in danger, and was not hit by Good's vehicle. His phone he was recording with hit the front of the car as he was preparing to fire his weapon.
        • goatlover21 days ago
          Terrible ruling then and polls show majority of Americans agree shooting Renee Good was not justifiable, nor are the current ICE tactics of dragging people fron their cars, breaking down their doors. And throwing pepper spray under the cars of families trying to leave.