By adamg on Tue., 10/6/2020 - 11:40 pm
Update: ICE changes its mind and acknowledges those were its agents.
WBUR rang up the ICE office in Boston to ask about the three guys with chest fanny packs who stopped a black jogger on VFW Parkway today. ICE said it could neither confirm nor deny whether those guys were actually ICE agents.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Trumpies' SS
By Daan
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 12:00am
ICE is Trumps open secret police. It's not wonder they won't respond.
If ICE won't confirm
By Sock_Puppet
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 2:39am
Then it remains an open question whether those were some kind of suburban militia cosplay goons acting under color of authority. This should be a matter for the real police now.
FUD
By perruptor
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 7:03am
ICE probably sees uncertainty in the public about whether they are doing this stuff here as a positive thing. The BPD should get a definite answer from them, if they ask, but the BPD may not tell us that answer.
VFW Parkway is State Police
By anon
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 7:35am
VFW Parkway is State Police jurisdiction .... Not BPD....
Ice doesn't care what the public thinks.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:25am
I'm guessing they are looking for someone specific. They stopped the wrong guy, then they moved on.
Crux of the problem
By Kaz
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:16am
ICE *is* a public agency. Therefore, WE have every right to demand answers from it. It doesn't matter whether they care to answer or not. That's not their decision to make. It's ours as their boss.
Whether these 3 numbnuts are their agents or not is not a matter of national security and doesn't have a security classification on it.
This fucked up administration where rule of law is just a hashtag has allowed them to become a gestapo (literally, Secret State Police). Let's have the ACLU take this sort of half-assed shakedown stop to court and see if there's any proof of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity for a man jogging down the street. NYC couldn't maintain stop-and-frisk...so there's no way whatever the fuck these yokels were thinking was legal either.
Like I said below:
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:28am
There should be a process where these guys need to show someone that they were looking for a specific person and that this "stop" (all sorts of legal boundries for what happened here) was legal or not.
More fascism
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 10:54am
Only now it is sprinting!
Creeping Fascism
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 10:56am
You clearly see this "state forces as Gods with mysterious unquestionable ways" as an upside.
All fun and games until your kid disappears incommunicado, honey.
It really isn't far from this fascist state or cosplay vigilante forces stopping citizens just because to full on disappearances of native born citizens, dear. Read up on what happened in Chile and Argentina for starters.
"Guessing"
By fungwah
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 10:59am
Well, if Pete Nice "guesses" that they weren't doing anything wrong, then I "guess" we should all just move on, right? Nothing to see here, folks - pay no attention to the people with guns accosting innocent people who refuse to identify themselves.
You made that up
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 11:01am
I guessed what they were doing. I'm not saying you should do anything.
"I'm guessing they are looking for someone specific."
By dmcboston
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 12:22pm
Does seem that way, but they do look rather unprofessional with their mismatching camo and black, not to mention muffintops and jeans.
So, here's my two cents...legal but unprofessional? I'd guess that they are bounty or bail jumper hunters
Pete, what do you think of this guess?
I'm not aware of federal bounty hunters/bail guys
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 12:46pm
I haven't thought about it in a while and I don't know the legal stuff behind it, but we don't have bail bondsmen in MA. I'm guessing the feds don't want bounty hunters grabbing guys and dragging them out of state or in state? (Don't see why they couldn't just bring them to the federal courthouse but again I've never heard of that stuff).
Def unprofessional although I didn't see the initial encounter. And feds almost always have badges and/or coats identifying themselves although I haven't participated in one of these things in a while either.
Well then
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 1:35pm
They won't care when all their funding disappears.
We pay them, they answer to the people. IF they don't care what people think then it is time for them to go to fucking hell without our money.
No firearms? Are these guys fake?
By doug m
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:17am
This is concerning: I'm asking if anyone can see actual firearms on these guys, I haven't studied the video with a magnifying glass, but I don't see guns in holsters, even on the tactical vests.
No agent from any office would be out without a firearm.
The rest of the gear - including badges - is easily available to any mall-ninja, but (even with a License To Carry) a normal citizen can't open carry a firearm. Open carry would take getting pulled over wearing this getup go from explainable, to a crime.
If these guys aren't armed with real guns, then the are fake - and that's really scary. To me their uncertainty and the way one guy half-heartedly asks about tattoos after "releasing" the jogger comes off as really... amateurish and awkward.
If I missed the guns, sorry and forgive me if I falsely suggested conspiracy where there is none.
Impersonation is also a crime
By perruptor
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 11:19am
Impersonating Federal officer is still a crime, isn't it?
I thought the same thing.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 11:25am
I didn't see any firearms. Never heard of bail bondsmen up here looking for people either. That was odd.
You not being aware of it ...
By perruptor
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 1:20pm
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Interesting.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 2:30pm
But I've still never heard of any and there aren't any statutes that I know of which would allow you to take someone by force and bring them to a court (there are citizen arrests). I always assumed since there is no exception in the law that it would be legally kidnapping. I could be wrong. The fact they did not look to have guns was interesting.
More or less
By perruptor
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 6:21pm
Bounty hunters have to register, and are supposed to have the local cops accompany them when they take custody of the fugitive.
Very consistent cosplayer - other folks have recognized them
By peter
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:56am
https://twitter.com/simonfrios/status/131316905213...
Well this seems to be an opportunity for Sheriff Tompkins to
By bulgingbuick
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:07am
do what Republicans want "Oath Keeper" sheriff's to do. Apply his oath and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
The Alphabet police
By anon
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:12am
Respond to city councilors, "You want answers,you can't handle the truth."
This is easy to figure out......
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:24am
If there are three guys charged in federal court for impersonating federal officers you know they were fake. If not they were real.
Not a good test
By Rob O
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:31am
Yes, as we know, every single criminal act results in charges.
Impersonating a federal agent????
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:54am
100% chance you will read about it.
Not if they aren't caught
By BostonDog
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:59am
Someone would need to go and find these guys. Did anyone at BPD get a call about them and investigate?
They would be caught.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:01am
Guys who impersonate law enforcement are almost always caught. Three guys during the day on the VFW? They aren't sticking around once someone pulls out a video.
nice
By berkleealum
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:06am
i too have unwavering faith in a system that is currently seeking to exonerate a 17 year old who killed someone under the pretense of helping the authorities keep peace
He didn't claim to be a federal agent.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:08am
And didn't stop random black guys jogging. He is also in jail and/or was charged right?
Right?
By lbb
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:20am
You don't know and yet you're commenting?
He was charged with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide, multiple charges of attempted first-degree intentional homicide, two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, and some traffic violations. AFAIK he is still in a juvenile prison in Illinois and fighting extradition to Wisconsin.
Not asking it as a question.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:23am
Asking it is as a confirmation question in regards to the first part of my sentence which I knew the answer to.
I didn't think it was that confusing.
Take your "I'm asking questions"
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 10:59am
And stuff them in your testalying hole.
You ain't fooling anyone here or impressing anyone with your "training" in pretending to seek info when you are really just trying to flood the scene with shit.
It is like blaming you for MA covid deaths swirls.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 11:04am
Aren't you in that field? You are a failure and should be fired and jailed right? You and Trump? How many people died because of your incompetence? Are you a murderer or just negligent?
Of course not. Why always make this something else? Are you that insecure?
I'm not flooding anything. Just telling you probably what those guys were doing, and the reasons they will give for doing it, and the reasons the federal courts will rule one way or the other. You add in all the other BS because you are who you are.
well
By berkleealum
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 11:21am
following that analogy, it’s probably a little bit more like if a stranger entered your room at a hospital, declined to say whether they were a doctor or not, and started doing doctor stuff to you anyway
Bad analogy
By SwirlyGrrl
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 1:32pm
Goes along well with your consistently bad faith "questions" and "arguments".
Sorry your local Q anon hole got cancelled on FB.
I've sat in state and federal courtrooms for thousands of hours
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 2:35pm
And I'll post what I think will happen in many of the cases presented here. And really show me where I'm wrong here? I predict that if challanged and these guys have an actual suspect who looks like this guy they might not get sued. Not saying that is right or wrong, just telling you how it will work. The problem is you don't agree with it and feel like you need to take it out on someone. I'm not someone you are used to bullying around though and you can't take it.
He didn't?
By perruptor
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 1:22pm
Is not flashing an ICE badge claiming to be a Federal agent? Stop digging that hole.
Kenosha
By Rob O
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 1:42pm
They are discussing that d-bag from Illinois who went to Wisconsin looking for trouble.
When your a black man
By Good Guy
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:33am
You never know what’s going to happen. We literally come out the front door looking both ways. It’s very hard to live as a black man in a racist world.
Solution
By Rob O
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:35am
I've never understood why all law enforcement is not required to (1) wear a uniform, and (2) have clear, unambiguous insignia identifying the law enforcement agency they are acting as part of.
Having guys run around with jeans, ball caps, vests and guns is confusing. Have ICE wear vests that say "POLICE" is factually incorrect (I don't see that here, but have seen it elsewhere).
What is the counter argument?
Even better
By BostonDog
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:49am
Require federal and local officers to clearly display an ID number in many places on their uniform. Citizens should be able to go to a website, enter that ID number, and see a picture of the officer to verify. It should also list which department they are assigned to including who to contact to report something related to the officer.
At no time should anyone be able to hide their identity unless they are working undercover. And if they are undercover, they aren't stopping people in the street.
Counter Argument:
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 8:58am
These guys are undercover and can't have uniforms because they don't want to scare off the people who they are looking for. If they did it the right way, they might get out and follow him and see where he was going. Or drive and follow him. Once he goes into a house they can see if that is an address of interest. If not they can move on. If they are in uniform and they are spotted, the wanted person in theory can figure out the feds are on him and escape, destroy evidence, etc.
What they should do is give out cards to they and have to fill out a report as to why they stopped this guy and make it semi public.
The better system
By Rob O
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:13am
Would be to allow unmarked officers to observe and then call in uniforms to make an arrest or interrogate a suspect. The increase in manpower is justified by the reduction in cowboys without any displayed badges jumping out of cars to scare citizens.
Don't think this was legally an interrogation.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:38am
And probably 10 different judges would rule this 10 different ways (seizure, stop, encounter, conversation, etc). There are also different federal standards for talking to regular citizens. They can just go up to anyone and ask them how their day is, what their name is, etc. The citizen doesn't have to stop or can ask if they are being detained (reasonable person standard). Then there is the process of whether or not the feds had enough to seize the person. That is where this mans rights were violated or not.
I don't think the feds are going to double up their manpower for something like this just because the agents failed to properly identify themselves.
Let me clarify
By Rob O
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:52am
My proposal: when law enforcement interacts with the citizenry, LE should be wearing clear uniforms and insignia. There would be an exception for undercover work (i.e., drug buys). Surveillance would not count as "interaction."
The great thing about living in a democracy is that the feds will do exactly what we demand. I guess we'll see if we get outraged enough to demand that change.
The feds won't do what you demand.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 9:58am
They will do what the courts allow them to do. As long as these guys can explain what happened to someone who is able to hold them accountable, you won't ever have an impact on what they do.
And again, I think they are doing what they are doing so they don't let someone escape. If this guy was wanted, and saw a marked vehicle pull up with uniformed officers get out, he might run and that might endanger more people. It might be safer because there would be more officers around, or it might be more dangerous because there are now more guns involved and more officers who don't know what they are looking for in the first place (see the fuck up at Brionna Taylor's apt). If they just want to talk to him (like probably 1,000s of federal agents all across the country do every day in suits and ties and jeans, etc), they should be professional and leave a card.
Me/I/We
By Rob O
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 10:54am
The employees of federal agencies will do what they are directed to do by their superiors (executive branch) and as allowed by the legislative and judicial branches. We elect the executives and legislators, so, yeah, while "Rob O on UHub" can't demand anything with effect, "we" can.
There is also no natural limit to your rationale for these un-uniformed interactions. Wouldn't the best way to avoid suspects running and "endangering" others be to sneak up behind them and throw a bag over their head and bundle them into an SUV with tinted windows? You're a reasonable guy and I know you are not proposing that, but I don't think you're recognizing the extent to which you are minimizing a random targeted individual's safety in the interest of some amorphous societal "safety."
True but think what happened here.
By Pete Nice
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 11:06am
three guys got out of a car, and asked a guy what his name was. What do you think a federal judge is going to rule on that if these guys are sued?
That is all I'm saying.
But that's not what I'm asking for
By Rob O
Wed, 10/07/2020 - 11:16am
I'm not saying that this should be found illegal by a judge.
I'm asking that we implement (through executive and legislative branches) new standards in the near-mandatory use of identifying uniforms.
And please stop blending all characterizations of federal officer questioning. Any reasonable person would feel differently being approached by an officer in a suit and leather soled shoes vs. being approached by these 3 jamokes dressed for who knows what. As they are likely to induce different reactions in the subject, we should have separate standards.
Pages
Add comment