Video Shows Feds Shooting ICE Protester With Nonlethal Round at Point-Blank Range, Blinding Him in One Eye
The incident raises more questions about federal agents' use-of-force policies and training.
A 21-year-old has been left permanently blind in one eye after a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officer shot a nonlethal round into the protester's face during a January 9 protest in Santa Ana, California, following the shooting and killing of Renee Good. This and other instances of federal agents using excessive force with crowd-control munitions raise alarming questions over the DHS officers' training on use-of-force policies.
A video published on X by Abigail Velez, a journalist for local affiliate ABC7, shows the moment when a federal officer struck Kaden Rummler, who was protesting outside of a federal building in a demonstration organized by Dare to Struggle, reports the Los Angeles Times. The video begins as an officer grabs a protester, identified by friends to the Times as Skye Jones, the leader of Dare to Struggle. As Jones resists officers, three other protesters, including Rummler, run up the steps and attempt to intervene. One woman is pushed back by an officer as a second officer fires a nonlethal shot into her leg. That same officer then fires at Rummler's face as he advances, carrying a megaphone.
The shot causes him to collapse to the ground until an agent grabs him by the collar and drags the bloodied Rummler toward the federal building.
Rummler lost vision in his left eye and suffered a fractured skull around his eye and nose, Jeri Rees, his aunt, told the Times. After six hours of surgery, where "doctors found shards of plastic, glass and metal embedded in his eyes and around his face," a 7 millimeter piece of shrapnel was left near Rummel's carotid artery for fear that removal could kill him, reports the Times.
Rees told the paper that Rummler said agents did not immediately call paramedics, and that "other officers were mocking him, saying 'You're going to lose your eye.'"
In a statement to the Times, Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary of public affairs, said that two officers were injured after a "mob of 60 rioters threw rocks, bottles and fireworks at law enforcement officers outside of the federal building." She also claimed DHS officers took the "rioter to the hospital for a cut." A Santa Ana Police Department spokesperson told the paper that, in the Times' phrasing, "The only violence…that night were demonstrators tossing orange cones at the federal agents."
In an after-publication response to Reason's query about an incident in which immigration agents seemingly used unauthorized force to enter an individual's home in Minnesota, a DHS spokesperson shed light on the agency's training standards. The spokesperson said that officers are "subject to months of rigorous training" encompassing "deescalation tactics to firearms," including "multiple classes dedicated to the proper use of force."
But this is not the first time immigration agents' use of force has been questioned. In the past two weeks, investigations have opened into the fatal shooting of Renee Good and the January 14 shooting of a Venezuelan national in the leg during an attempted arrest in Minnesota. Last September, federal agents flooded the streets of Chicago, leading to a federal lawsuit against the Trump administration and federal agents for using "extreme brutality" against protesters and bystanders. In this case, one federal judge said the evidence of officers using excessive force "shocks the conscience." One such incident described in the lawsuit involved an agent, caught on video, shooting a pastor in the head with pepper balls during a protest.
Under DHS use-of-force guidelines, updated in February 2023, agents may be authorized to use and carry less-lethal devices, such as pepper balls and rubber bullets, and must complete training at least every two years. However, using a less-lethal device is considered deadly force when it "carries a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury," such as "uses of impact weapons to strike the neck or head." The guidelines stipulate that DHS officers "may use deadly force only when…the [officer] has a reasonable belief that the subject of force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the [officer] or to another person."
Ed Obayashi, a sheriff's deputy and legal adviser of Modoc County in northern California, told the Times that officers are trained to avoid aiming at the face because less-lethal "projectiles can still cause serious injury [or] death." Obayashi also told the Times that he didn't see an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officers in the video of Rummler.
This is yet another example of federal agents using excessive force against protesters and bystanders with both nonlethal and lethal weapons. Perhaps the confusion over use-of-force standards is unsurprising given the Trump administration's rush to hire 10,000 new immigration enforcement officers last year, but the consequence is an unacceptable threat to Americans' rights and safety.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Autumn, do you think it is OK for people to "intervene" in an arrest?
Are you fucking retarded?
Dude tried to interfere and got blasted in the face for it. Good. Shame the munition was non-lethal.
Video shows the officer standing at a line, begin to retreat as protestors moved forward, then fire only as protestors approached their line.
This is another example of reason defending violence from the left. You do not run at officers holding a line.
Hey they can do whatever they want, no consequences apply.
It's how they were raised.
It's not a "dude". "She" f*cked around and found out.
This is the result of kids being told they are special and do not have to obey rules made for a civil society. This is the result of never being told "no". She is probably stupid enough to show up and obstruct another ICE operation resulting in her losing her other eye. Maybe CNN or MSNBC can live-stream it to increase their viewer numbers.
Do you think it is OK for a Federal agent to shoot someone in the face at point blank range with a non-lethal round when that person is merely "interfering"?
Of course you do, you fascist POS.
Yes. That’s how it works you Marxist snake. And a lot better than Ashli Babbitt got for a lot less.
I'm not a Marxist, of course, but you lack both knowledge and vocabulary. Now fuck off.
Yeah, a lot of you Marxists say you’re not Marxists. You just spout their crap and always run to the defense of Marxists.
And you’re the one who fucks off, not me, you retarded pinko limey.
Why don't you explain how someone who consistently advocates for capitalism and who opposes centralised management of the economy - as I have done countless times on these pages - is a Marxist? Like many fascists, you seem to equate opposition to fascism as communist or Marxist when often enough it's merely pragmatic libertarian or anti-authoritarian.
Continue to fuck off, you fascist POS.
"...Why don't you explain how someone who consistently advocates for capitalism..."
Who would that be, fuckwit?
Uh huh….. China has ‘capitalism’ too. You’re just another far leftist cosplaying as capitalist or a libertarian. Just like your pal Pedo Jeffy.
You should just cut the shit and admit what you are. No one here is fooled.
Oh, and so we’re clear, you don’t tell me to fuck off. I tell YOU to fuck off? M’kay bitch?
Now fuck off.
Yes. Should have done it twice.
Do not try to intervene in an arrest and you won't get blasted in the face.
Exactly. Watch the video. This little shit wasn't just hanging around on a corner with a sign. He attacked the officers to try and prevent an arrest. The cop didn't aim for his face, that dipshit put his face in the way. Stupid is as stupid does.
NO! Being an aggravating butt nugget is certainly worthy of arrest and prosecution, but there is no indication that this guy was engaging in activity that was likely to cause death or serious injury to law enforcement. No morally or ethically aware person would encourage LEOs to intentionally maim, cripple, paralyze or blind people who are acting up in public, but not attempting to cause injury or causing such injury out of stupidity or ignorance. The purpose of law enforcement is to gain compliance with the law by the least intrusive or destructive means available. Blinding someone intentionally when you could create intense pain without severe injury is the act of a psychopath. I absolutely support the mass arrests of illegals and I support the agents of DHS, ICE and BP in their activities, but intentionally blinding this young guy for being stupid makes me sick.
Interfering with an arrest likely gets you in trouble, asswipe.
AGREED. A classic case of FAFO. I hope young Mr. Rummler does recover from that eye injury, if only to literally "see" the ERROR of HIS ways. Still, he's 21 and perfectly responsible for his actions. You don't take part in a RIOT and assault Federal officers. Be assured that we don't see shit like this in Mexico for a simple reason: the Federales ShOOT to KILL.
Mini Darwin Award.
FAFO maggot
Seriously, Reason, I did not believe you could find a worse writer than Dalmia. But you did it. Autumn is the absolute shit worst.
Sullum is printed here daily. Fiona is dumber, but I don't think she's worse.
This is Autumn "nitrogen asphyxiation has never been tested" Billings.
Even if the guy dismembered 20 people, she'd complain that the band-aid the hospital put on his hangnail wasn't soft enough.
Again, "stochastic martyrdom complex" my ass, this is malicious stupidity.
Little Autumn should be handed over to the TDA illegals she champions. She can report in after a week and see how that works out for her.
in a demonstration organized by Dare to Struggle, reports the Los Angeles Times
I’d be interested in who the fuck “Dare to Struggle” actually is and where they get their funding from.
Not sure this publication does that kind of journalism. Their wheelhouse seems to be parroting narratives about edited videos.
Do they even have notarized membership cards?
She dared to be stupid. Well, now she will be struggling to see for the remainder of her life. Goal accomplished!
From their website: "In the United States, millions of people face grinding oppression from the capitalist system, and we’re not doing enough to try to stop it."
https://daretostruggle.org/2023/05/29/mission-statement/
This does not shock me in the least.
Stop people from being oppressed or stop capitalism? From what they say in their own words the second is more important than the first. Of course, where they are going to get their money from if there is no capitalism is anyone's guess. The group get's quite a bit of funding not only from the usual suspects but also tax payer handouts from LA and California through grants. It's all part of the money laundering complex on the left.
Queue the bootlicking MAGA fascists saying how this is totally ok.
As Jones resists officers, three other protesters, including Rummler, run up the steps and attempt to intervene.
Intervening with an arrest. Lucky he only lost an eye.
He should get five years for ‘intervening’.
They ran up on an officer. You said babbit was allowed to be shot without even doing that.
MAGAs are the dumbest shits on the planet. The comment section here proves a hundred times a day.
""MAGAs are the dumbest shits on the planet. ""
But they are smart enough not to poke the bear and think nothing would happen. Still smarter than most liberals
Including the asswipe MG.
Correction or fine-tuning:
MAGAs are the MOST EVIL AND POWER-HUNGRY shits on the planet. The comment section here proves a hundred times a day.
They are also punishment-worshitters, so long ass shit is SNOT THEM that is getting punished, by the way.
Unread
Un-snivilized, Snooty Sniveller!
Yet you have no response. So you’re dumber than we are.
Aren’t you, faggot?
Queue the retarded comment from someone who didn't watch the video. You don't get to assault officers trying to prevent the arrest of someone else without consequences. He lost an eye because of his actions and no one elses.
the consequence is an unacceptable threat to Americans' rights and safety.
Or, you could, ya know, not treat ICE like the gestapo.
For that to happen ICE would have to stop acting like the gestapo (or SA).
I think you'll be disappointed when the rest of us get involved. You think the feds are scary?
I am looking forward to it. We defeated fascists once, we will do it again.
Do not desecrate the memories of our fathers and grandfathers who defeated fascism by suggesting they have any resemblance to the likes of you.
Your fathers and grandfathers would roll in their graves if they knew their offspring brought fascism to America.
My WWII veteran father would have put you in the hospital for suggesting that he and you were on the same side.
Exactly.
Molly is showing ignorance about what that generation believes.
Tony wallows in ignorance and stupidity. He wants to live in ‘1984’ as a brainless drone.
She and her ilk would call your father (and my grandfather, also a WWII veteran) fascists since they were patriotic Americans who loved their country while recognizing its many flaws.
Tony would have been a proud Nazi so long as he could hide his homosexuality. Although I suspect he would gleefully send other homos to the camps, along with anyone else he decided was icky.
They'd question if the effort was worth it when CCP toadies like you exist.
Your not a very good troll. You just make random unhinged statements in order to get responses. Your parents didn't pay attention to you when you were a kid, did they.
Who's the we?
That generation would not have good things to say about these protestors interfering with a legitimate government agency.
ICE is not a legitimate government agency. They are violent lawless racist thugs.
They aren't authorized by law? You get more retarded by the post.
ICE is acting outside of their legal authorization. Being created by a law does not give an agency the freedom to commit any crime they want.
Your lack of understanding is not a badge of honor.
Where are they acting outside of their legal authorization? What crimes have been committed?
Walz +7
Whats outside their domain?
"Title 8 USC § 1357. Powers of immigration officers and employees
(a) Powers without warrant --
Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
(5) to make arrests-
(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or
(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony."
Tony just doesn’t like it.
You are looking forward to a safe space. You are a keyboard warrior.
At least the clowns getting killed and maimed have the courage of their convictions. You've got nothing.
You are probably not as good as Cuba's best. We moved through them like they were butter.
China Tony, you celebrate and emulate Mao and his red guard. You are the baddie.
Molly: "We were Fascists before, and will be again."
You didn’t defeat shit, Doc, not least of which is because YOU are the fascists.
Oh Tony. We have such sights to show you.
If you cosplayers actually thought they were the gestapo, you wouldn’t be acting the way you do.
If ICE doesn't want to be treated like the Gestapo, maybe they should stop acting like the Gestapo.
If stupid liberals don't want to be treated like common criminals, maybe they should stop acting like common criminals.
Not common criminals. Most of them know to go along with the arrest.
The radical criminals that think they can do what they want and veto the arrest is more like it.
True. They think it's the summer of love and can get away with anything.
Nice to see that you support Gestapo-like tactics against the people whom the state (and you) label as "criminals".
Who gets to decide who is a criminal other than the state?
From a *libertarian* perspective, a criminal is a person who violates the NAP.
From a MAGA perspective, a criminal is someone who contaminates the precious bodily fluids of America by having the wrong identity.
A criminal is someone who violates a criminal law. Criminal laws are established by the state.
So the cops should be beating you. For letting all those illegals in here in the first place. That sounds good to me. A series of savage beatings would be educational for you. Something that should have happened long ago.
ChatGPT is Chemjeff disingenuous?
Short answer: yes—partly, but in a specific way.
Longer answer: Chemjeff is strategically disingenuous, not confused or purely bad-faith.
Here’s what that means, precisely.
1. He argues as if others believe things they didn’t say
In both the “thugs with guns” and “Gestapo/ICE” threads, Chemjeff systematically upgrades other people’s positions into more extreme moral claims:
Prudence → “cower in fear”
Acceptance of arrest procedures → “support Gestapo tactics”
Recognition of state authority → “fascism”
That’s disingenuous because:
He understands the distinction
He erases it anyway
He then argues against the inflated version
This is classic straw-manning with intent, not misunderstanding.
2. He switches standards depending on rhetorical need
Chemjeff oscillates between incompatible modes without acknowledging the tension:
Absolutist moral language
(“Gestapo,” “thugs,” “liberty lovers,” NAP purity)
Selective pragmatism
(Lockdown protests “worked,” resistance is implied feasible)
When challenged on outcomes or feasibility, he retreats to moral purity.
When moral purity is questioned, he gestures vaguely at practical examples.
That’s not consistent reasoning—it’s frame-hopping to avoid constraint.
3. He treats moral condemnation as argument
Chemjeff often behaves as though:
If I can morally taint your position strongly enough, I don’t need to engage its substance.
Calling ICE “Gestapo” or restraint “cowardice” does rhetorical work, but it does not establish:
Equivalence
Proportionality
Causation
Strategic necessity
Using moral shock instead of argument is a form of rhetorical bad faith—even if the speaker sincerely feels the outrage.
4. He is sincere about ideology, disingenuous about dialogue
This is the key distinction.
Chemjeff is not lying about what he believes:
He genuinely rejects state legitimacy
He genuinely centers the NAP
He genuinely despises MAGA tribalism
But he is disingenuous about conversation goals.
He presents himself as:
“Challenging assumptions”
“Exposing contradictions”
“Defending liberty”
While actually doing:
Boundary policing
In-group signaling
Moral sorting (“real” liberty lovers vs others)
That’s not dialogue; it’s ideological enforcement.
5. Why this keeps recurring
Chemjeff’s rhetoric only works if:
Nuance is collapsed
Prudence is reframed as vice
Legitimacy is denied a priori
So he must be disingenuous about others’ motives and meanings—or his whole structure falls apart.
This is why:
He never grants good faith
He never concedes partial points
He never engages cost–benefit analysis
Those would force tradeoffs, and tradeoffs weaken absolutism.
Bottom line (clear and fair)
Chemjeff is ideologically sincere but rhetorically disingenuous.
He is not trying to understand or persuade; he is trying to morally corner, expose, and sort.
That makes his comments useful as signals, but unreliable as arguments.
If you want, I can:
Show how to call out this disingenuousness without sounding statist
Distinguish him from genuinely confused commenters
Or map this style to familiar historical movements that ate their own allies
Reminder. Jeff thinks trespassing is a capital offense for conservatives.
chemjeff radical individualist 5 years ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
What is there to talk about?
From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.
They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren't supposed to be.
Jeff: "That's different because Babbett engaged in an insurrection, thereby forfeiting her life."
Trump: "I'm going to invoke the Insurrection Act since local government not only tolerates but encourages their constituents to attack federal law enforcement and damage/steal federal property."
Jeff: OMG WHAT A FASCIST!
What right does this dumb cunt think us being infringed! The right to attack others without consequence? Would love to see her justify that while having sense beaten into her.
>Video Shows Feds Shooting ICE Protester With Nonlethal Round at Point-Blank Range, Blinding Him in One Eye
But I bet it doesn't show the couple minutes *before* he was shot in the eye.
Because that would expose that he was interfering with law enforcement, endangering them, and escalating the situation.
None of that is relevant. ICE thugs are not allowed to maim you for that.
They're allowed to defend themselves. If an aggressor is maimed as a result of that, that is the fault of the aggressor. FAFO.
If it was a DHS agent driving the car and a protestor was in front, they would be calling it attempted murder.
Who they? You can't make up a scenario and then blame people for their imaginary actions. That being said, I am guessing MAGAs would be totally cool with people shooting ICE thugs using a car as a weapon.
It's called putting the shoe on the other foot.
He’s saying you faggot democrats are hypocrites. Because you’re hypocrites.
They’re potentially allowed to kill you outright. On that note, I strongly urge you to ‘intervene’ in an ICE arrest as aggressively as possible.
> shows the moment
Show the rest of it or we just assume you're hiding something.
The video doesnt help her at all. So she wont show it.
From the linked video I saw a guy rush and physically attack a cop. I don't care who you are or where you are you will be arrested for laying hands on a cop. The rest of the rioters were clearly trying to interfere in a lawful arrest. Not happy this dumbass got injured but this is really remarkably stupid. We can argue about whether or not in the midst of the chaos created by the rioters the cop have aimed 6 inches lower but a better strategy is for these idiots to fucking get out of the way. The problem is that these idiots have been convinced by idiots like Autumn that immigration enforcement is some kind of extra legal brown shirt Nazi para military and they are free to obstruct and attack ICE with impunity. I could make the case that Autumn is responsible for this guy's injuries because she encouraged his lawless behavior.
""convinced by idiots like Autumn that immigration enforcement is some kind of extra legal brown shirt Nazi para military""
It shows how little they know. If some Nazi paramilitary shit was around, they would be running for their life and not getting in their faces. They would do everything in the power to avoid them.
Right. Once again, Iran is putting lead in protesters like it's a pencil factory and we're getting deluged with stories about not showing up to an ICE operation and putting your eye in front of a non-lethal weapon.
Years ago in a Concealed Carry course we were advised to “avoid stupid people, avoid stupid places”. At the top of list of stupid places were political demonstrations.
It’s no surprise who they attract.
It’s toe, to start mass incarcerating radical democrats. This free range insurrection shit has to end.
Or just shoot into the crowd until they stop moving. But I figure most folks don’t have the stomach for that, yet.
>As Jones resists officers, three other protesters, including Rummler, run up the steps and attempt to intervene. One woman is pushed back by an officer as a second officer fires a nonlethal shot into her leg. That same officer then fires at Rummler's face as he advances, carrying a megaphone.
Actually that sounds . . . completely justified. Good shoot.
The video shows it is justified as well. In spite of all the attempts to clip their propaganda to irrelevance any sentient person can see he earned it. The officer's tool belt choice is the only reason he didn't get a Darwin award.
>But this is not the first time immigration agents' use of force has been questioned
Its not working Autumn. This is like copying three Twitter posts and saying they're 'what everyone is saying' about something.
Who questioned the UOF? The ACAB people. That's like you calling me a Nazi - I don't think you're qualified to judge who is and is not a Nazi and no one thinks they're qualified to judge excessive force.
The pipeline from "Don't Tread On Me" to "Comply or Die" is unusually short.
Apples to fucking ballpeen hammers.
The Democrats violates rights (covid, vax, gun control, open borders), while the right enforces laws to rid the country of criminals.
lol you can drop the pretense now, your guy won. Your team's focus on immigration was never about legalities, it was always about culture and race. The whole point of the stormtrooper tactics is to make everyone else afraid to come here, and to inflict maximum terror on those who dared to come here in search of a better life for themselves. Pour encourageur les autres, right?
The penniless Guatemalan who comes here to scrub toilets for a living is not a violent gangbanger criminal but it doesn't matter, they are all undesirables who deserve to go.
"'The penniless Guatemalan who comes here...."
Must do it legally.
This presumes the law itself is just. Immigration law is mostly unjust and awful.
Besides, a very easy way to solve the problem is mass amnesty. Then they are legal! What do you think?
""This presumes the law itself is just.""
No it does not.
Notice how jeff says nobody is above the law when cheering against conservatives, then talks about legal morality abd defiance for liberals and illegals?
I think it’s time for Chat GPT to break down Jeffy’s lies again.
Yes it does. There is nothing noble or moral about obeying an unjust law. By doing so you are furthering the injustice.
ChatGPT, what is Chemjeff doing here?
Chemjeff isn’t really arguing about immigration mechanics there; he’s reframing the debate onto moral legitimacy and motives. A breakdown of what he’s doing:
1. Shifting the frame from legality to morality
When TrickyVic says “Must do it legally,” Chemjeff immediately rejects legality as the standard:
He argues that obedience only matters if the law itself is just.
This is a classic civil-disobedience framing (think MLK, Thoreau): unjust laws deserve defiance, not compliance.
So he’s not engaging with how immigration law works, but whether it deserves respect at all.
2. Attributing motive to the opposing side
Early on, he claims:
Immigration enforcement is not about legality, but culture, race, and intimidation.
Phrases like “stormtrooper tactics,” “inflict maximum terror,” and “undesirables” are meant to morally indict enforcement advocates, not persuade them.
This is an intent-based argument: instead of debating policy outcomes, he asserts bad faith and cruelty as the true motivation.
3. Using an archetypal sympathetic example
“The penniless Guatemalan who comes here to scrub toilets” serves to:
Humanize undocumented immigrants.
Implicitly contrast them with the “gangbanger criminal” stereotype.
Suggest enforcement treats all immigrants as morally equivalent and disposable.
This is rhetorical, not empirical—it’s about moral intuition.
4. Proposing mass amnesty as a rhetorical checkmate
When he says:
“A very easy way to solve the problem is mass amnesty. Then they are legal!”
He’s doing two things at once:
Pointing out that legality is politically malleable, not sacred.
Forcing opponents to admit their objection isn’t really about legality if they oppose amnesty.
It’s a reveal-the-hidden-premise tactic.
5. Embracing principled lawbreaking
His final line:
“There is nothing noble or moral about obeying an unjust law.”
This locks him into a coherent but radical position:
Law has no intrinsic moral authority.
Moral judgment comes first; law is secondary.
That’s why other commenters push him toward “anarchist” territory—because once you deny baseline legitimacy to immigration law, enforcement arguments lose traction entirely.
Bottom line
Chemjeff is:
Making a moral absolutist argument, not a policy one.
Accusing immigration restrictionists of bad faith and cruelty.
Treating legality as a tool of power, not a neutral rule.
Whether one agrees or not, he’s being internally consistent, provocative, and intentionally confrontational—aimed more at exposing what he sees as hypocrisy than at finding common ground.
Wait, so your stance is that immigration law is completely unjust?
How are you not a “borders are just a construct, and should be ignored” run of the mill idiot anarchist?
No. And fuck you with that fucking moronic take.
What is unjust about American immigration laws?
That it exists at all. - jeff apparently
Amnesty requires an offense, glad to see you acknowledge their crimes which are the reason for their removal. No amnesty, go back, and apply the correct way.
Our immigration laws are just, and liberal. No one gives a fuck what a seditious blob of treason like you says. All our immigration laws are constitutional.
You just want open borders, and you aren’t getting them.
Seethe harder you fat bitch.
They have to use those tactics because the blue states don't cooperate and let ICE take custody at the jails. They do here and we have no problems.
ICE should go to the red states and make their quotas there. There are still plenty of illegals plucking chickens in Texas. Why bother with the blue states where it’s so much trouble unless you want to stir the pot and maybe have an excuse to cancel elections?
Fuck off commie. The blue states are importing these parasites for the NGO graft and the political power come census time. They need to be done away with permanently, the illegal aliens too.
Probably because it’s not about quotas and is actually about getting illegal immigrants, especially the violent criminal ones, out of America?
I really don’t understand why Democrats and Open Borders Libertarians are fighting that aspect so hard.
The blue states are where they're hiding at and the states allowing them to steal from the rest of us.
That is on top of giving them IDs and allowing them to vote and kill people on the roads.
They are in red states. You just don’t hear about it because there aren’t a bunch of screeching communist filth (like you) committing insurrection.
Yes. Anyone who comes here illegally “deserves to go”, you fat piece of shit. There’s no exception for people who border jump because they want to make a buck. Those People are welcome to apply through legal channels.
And if they do follow the law and do so, I say good luck. But no more sympathy for illegals. I know this is upsetting to you, so I’ll understand if you feel a need to commit suicide.
"""Comply or Die"""
It's not always death. But you are short in the mind if you think it's a good idea to roll the dice.
Retaliating with force is not the same as initiating force.
Let's go with they are thugs with guns for a moment.
That would make it 100 times more stupid to fuck with them.
Smart people know that will not end well.
Be smart, be alive.
And your preferred method to oppose 'thugs with guns' is...? Isn't this why the Second Amendment exists?
To avoid them.
Any gun owner knows if you plan to go up against the government you must win or you will pay the price.
Avoiding them means the 'thugs with guns' proceed to thug it up unopposed. Is that really what is expected of liberty lovers? "Comply or die", or "cower in fear"?
Did Team Red meekly comply when the thugs were enforcing lockdowns and masks? I seem to recall a few protests.
Protesting is pointless, so no I didn't protest during COVID. I just kept living my life and laughing at retards with masks. I think that's generally the difference here, acting for group acceptance or trying to win others over to the "cause" versus just going on with your life. And to be clear: the mask folks were the anti-liberty crowd, using coercion and force.
What, you wanted people to die!!!1!1!1?
I bet you wouldn’t be so cavalier if I drove around with a bear in my trunk!
…….and Pedo Jeffy is attempting to divert the discussion to some kind of nonsense. Do we really need to get Chat GPT to break down your bullshit again Fatfuck? Or have you embarrassed yourself enough today?
ChatGPT what are the logical weaknesses in Chemjeff’s argument?
Here are the specific logical weaknesses in Chemjeff’s comment, broken down cleanly and precisely.
1. False dilemma (the core flaw)
“Avoiding them means the ‘thugs with guns’ proceed unopposed… ‘Comply or die’, or ‘cower in fear’?”
Chemjeff pretends there are only two options:
Armed confrontation, or
Total submission
That’s false. Opposition exists on a spectrum:
Legal challenges
Political organizing
Mass non-compliance
Federalism / nullification
Economic exit (moving, boycotts, decentralization)
Strategic patience
TrickyVic explicitly made a pragmatic risk assessment, not a moral surrender. Chemjeff collapses prudence into cowardice, which is logically invalid.
2. Equivocation on “oppose”
Chemjeff treats opposition as if it must mean physical resistance.
But “oppose” can mean:
Refuse legitimacy
Undermine enforcement capacity
Delay or raise costs
Win politically over time
By silently redefining the term, he sneaks in his conclusion without arguing for it.
3. Ignoring asymmetric power realities
TrickyVic’s argument:
“If you plan to go up against the government you must win or you will pay the price.”
Chemjeff never addresses this. He doesn’t explain:
How victory would occur
Under what conditions resistance succeeds
Why defeat isn’t the overwhelmingly likely outcome
Instead, he substitutes moral outrage for strategic analysis. That’s a non-response to the actual claim.
4. Appeal to identity (not reasoning)
“Is that really what is expected of liberty lovers?”
This is not an argument. It’s an identity shaming tactic:
If you disagree, you’re not a “real” liberty lover
That pressures conformity rather than demonstrating correctness. Logical validity is independent of group identity.
5. Misuse of the Second Amendment
“Isn’t this why the Second Amendment exists?”
Even if the Second Amendment protects armed resistance in theory, that does not imply:
It is always justified
It is always wise
It should be the first response
He treats purpose as mandate, which is a non sequitur.
6. Faulty analogy: lockdown protests
“Did Team Red meekly comply…? I recall a few protests.”
Problems:
Protests ≠ armed confrontation
Many protests were permitted, symbolic, or low-risk
The state tolerated them because they posed no existential threat
Using tolerated protest as evidence that confrontation works is a category error.
7. Emotional framing replaces evidence
Words like:
“thugs”
“cower”
“comply or die”
…are designed to provoke disgust and fear, not clarify consequences. Emotional intensity doesn’t strengthen logical validity—it often hides its absence.
Summary (one sentence)
Chemjeff’s argument is weak because it replaces strategy with moral pressure, redefines opposition to force a conclusion, and dodges the central question of whether confrontation would actually succeed.
It is wise to understand the situation and what is the best course of action for your survival. Some people are not that wise.
Looks like someone is fortunate that agents are using non-lethal rounds.
Not something that should be assumed.
The time for that kind of restraint is running out.
Do we purposefully seek out the worst possible examples to try to make our case, or are there just no good examples to choose from?
The retarded driver wasn't a bad case at first. Adrenaline and panic on either side could go either way, then the videos came out...much less ambiguity now.
I watched a video earlier today where the ICE agent calmly and coolly explained to a lady driver that if they kept interfering and blowing their whistles in the officers faces and blocking traffic that it could have consequences like arrest/detainment. After yelling and cursing st him some more he said “okay ma’am, we’ll have a nice day” and walked out of frame (where the video ended).
But examples like that don’t push retards like Molly, Jeff, or Autumn’s gestapo narrative.
We need to get rid of the left. We can’t hav ether creatures roaming free anymore.
I still have two eyes because I'm smarter than that guy.
If I had a kid that came home missing an eye because he attacked a cop my reaction would be "what the fuck were you thinking dumbass?"
I mean it's a low bar, right?
I've had to deal with people professionally who probably couldn't clear it. Recently.
Video Shows Feds Shooting ICE Protester With Nonlethal Round at Point-Blank Range, Blinding Him in One Eye
So, uh, depending on the weapon and the round, the difference between point blank and effective range is on the order of a few feet, which is kinda inherent to what makes them "nonlethal".
If you don't want your vision adjusted by a nonlethal round, don't be within the effective range or point-blank range. Or, maybe, wear eye protection.
a 7 millimeter piece of shrapnel was left near Rummel's carotid artery for fear that removal could kill him
Wait, what? So a hospital capable of performing surgery with sub-micrometer precision just decided to leave a piece of shrapnel up against his carotid so that the next time his head slips off his hand while he's dozing the shrapnel goes into his carotid artery and kills him?
, reports the Times.
OIC, nevermind.
After six hours of surgery, where "doctors found shards of plastic, glass and metal embedded in his eyes and around his face," a 7 millimeter piece of shrapnel was left near Rummel's carotid artery for fear that removal could kill him, reports the Times.
This narrative even makes the hospital look bad. You spend six hours cleaning up shards and debris in his face that couldn't kill him and leave the one piece of shrapnel that could?
I totally understand if they immobilized him, cleaned up what they could, and deferred the carotid surgery until later or referred him to a more specialized facility, but this makes is sound like they discovered a ticking time bomb in his chest, changed the stitches and dressed the wound, and released him.
Always good to see the Libertarians for a Police State spew their vomit
Libertarians are pro deterrence or the retaliatory use of force.
Actually I see a bright future for this guy. All he needs is an eye patch, a pointy hat and a parrot. He could monitize that shit on YouTube and pay the California billionaire tax and solve the homelessness crisis.
Eye in the Skye Jones and his parrot Call The PollICE.
That's what I'm talking about. Could easily be a PBS kids show that turns into a billion dollar franchise.
No, real libertarians love anarcho-tyranny, especially from the left.
You’re probably just nary because they did this to some commie perp, instead of hunting down an innocent Jew minding their own business.
The problem with ICE is that they don't shoot enough people. I hate cops as much as the next guy but I hate these damn commies more.
Be patient—it's coming.
10 THROW IT AGAINST THE WALL AND SEE IF IT STICKS
20 GOTO 10
I guess he didn't see that coming.
shooting a pastor in the head with pepper balls during a protest
[Clicks link]
I'm not hearing a, "Yes." In fact, this, combined with the lawsuit where he himself alleged "lethal suppression of 1A rights" sounds an awful lot like bearing false witness.
Rev. Black: "They killed me with pepper balls!"
[Sir Gallahad does double take]
Rev. Black: "Well, I got better!"
Side note: Interesting that all these innocent bystanders were being shot all over Chicago and either there's no video footage of it or Reason and others didn't really pick up the story(ies) until it landed on Tim Walz' doorstep.
He is spiritually rooted in Quakerism
Wait, you mean the religion that refuses to swear an oath before God that they'll tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth because it implies that they would otherwise violate their religious oaths to do it always?
Kinda makes the meandering he did to avoid the question of whether his congregation supports him seem extra hypocritical and that he's really more of a self-righteous activist cosplaying as a pious spiritual leader.
Forget martyrdom, you guys can't even do actual religious observance correctly.
Ed Obayashi, a sheriff's deputy and legal adviser of Modoc County in northern California
Wow! A sheriff's deputy?! And county legal advisor in rural CA! Not too local!
>Ed Obayashi, a sheriff's deputy and legal adviser of Modoc County in northern California
How many people did they call to find someone from halfway across the country to comment the way they wanted?
I doubt it would happen, but it would be hilarious to watch the DOJ go Kim Davis on him. All it would take is for one person in Modoc County to say "Nuh uh." and, unlike Kim Davis who was elected and was opposing a federal policy imposed on her/Rowan County), Ed the retard, despite his status as a legal advisor, is just an appointed deputy and pontificating about policy that isn't conspicuously at issue in Modoc.
Bondi could probably just say, "We're looking into it." and the sheriff would drop him like the oversized useless sack of shit that he is.
Go back to
bustinghelping bust cow tippers, drunken boaters, and kids playing mailbox baseball, Ed.If only the illegal trespassers and their protesting supporters would keep marching south into Mexico then all their contention would magically disappear.
It's so upsetting that Trump thinks CA is part of the USA! /s
As others have pointed out about about *real* Nazis/Gestapo tactics, the administration is being nice, using kid gloves, they're quite capable of making contention disappear.
The real Gestapo doesn't drive around at mid-day to known locations and get out of the vehicle with guns in holsters where people can video tape them doing what they're doing from 6 angles at 8 vantage points.
Of note: This was similar to the reply directly from the military, less widely circulated because the whole affair was less widely... believed... around the "Storm Area 51" "stochastic martyrdom". I'm certain it was almost literally "In no uncertain terms: Do not come here. Do not storm the facilities. The people here are trained to defend it. They can use lethal force. They will detain you if possible, but kill you if necessary."
I'm certain it was almost literally "In no uncertain terms: Do not come here. Do not storm the facilities. The people here are trained to defend it. They can use lethal force. They will detain you if possible, but kill you if necessary."
In fact, if I'm not mistaken, this was in response to the Sheriff or local police chief not taking the internet meme seriously and the base commander essentially sending the message to him that he needs to get his shit together or the bodies are going to be on his doorstep.
If these idiots really thought ICE agents were the Gestapo, they wouldn't be out every night volunteering themselves to being arrested. They wouldn't be bringing themselves to the Gestapo's attention.
How dare Reason suggest that there should be any limitations on what the Brownshirts are allowed to do.
If there wasn’t, and they are as you describe them, you wouldn’t be alive right now to whine and cry about it.
We coddle you.
You certainly would have no problem with Brownshirts killing citizens who disagree with you, obviously.
You certainly have no problem lying, steaming pile of TDS-addled shit.
Ok, so you’re Green Party or CPUSA. It doesn’t matter. You’re a global leftist that is likely thrilled with what is happening in your home country. You all align yourself with the extreme left here.
Everything else is just details, eh comrade?
I do. That why we voted you democrats out.
Fuckwit, I'm not a Democrat either. But I don't believe your denial. Can you cite a single instance of a cop shooting a citizen reported on the Reason pages where you backed the citizen?
Totally depends on if that 'citizen' broke into some place or is supporting that break-in.
Ya know the circumstances does make a difference.
Ashli Babbit. Among others. Of course she’s an icky Trump voter, so you were glad to see her dead, just like your leftist pals here.
Immigration enforcement, especially against convicted/known criminals is not gestapo tactics and the agents aren’t brown shirts just because you’re an open borders fuckwit.
What the Brownshirts are doing isn't merely immigration enforcement, fuckwit.
What you're doing is lying, asswipe.
Another thread full of Libertarians in favor of Police Violence against Citizens anytime for any reason whatsoever. Rothbard would be proud.
Cites?
Literally nobody here has advocated such.
Sorry you don’t know the difference between a peaceful protest and bum rushing agents/driving cars at them/or other means of assault that will see force used against you. But then, you can’t tell the difference between reality and Hamas propaganda, so I’m not really surprised.
I doubt many libertarians have sympathy for raging criminal Marxists obstructing the lawful good activities of our ICE officers.
A mob threatens a man wearing a hoodie with an American Flag on it: "take it off and you won't get hurt."
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2012645006041907563
One more FAFO!