From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Rhino  wrote:   
   >2026-01-10 9:09 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:   
      
   >>Gonna sit back and pop some popcorn for this one.   
      
   >>https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/2009954599965499392/pu/vi   
   /avc1/1434x1080/uHIzLe-MUeaGGVri.mp4   
      
   >Does this meet the statutory definition of insurrection yet? We've got a   
   >police chief insisting she will arrest ICE agents for doing their jobs,   
   >contrary to the laws of the nation, based on her own sense of morality.   
   >She's also declaring that Renee Goode was killed without justification   
   >which must surely be concerning to the ICE agent's lawyer. She's a long   
   >way outside of her responsibilities as a police chief at the very least   
   >weighing in on a case from another jurisdiction.   
      
   I agree with very little of this.   
      
   Her reaction is over-the-top as this is the current strategy of reacting   
   to Trump's antics in kind. There is no useful political rhetoric. As a   
   police chief, if she's reacting to politics with her own political and   
   unconstitutional nonsense, she's unprofessional.   
      
   Using police to carry out a political strategy, which is what Trump has   
   been doing with ICE and CPB agents doing show of force and creating   
   videos, is outrageous. The response to unconstitutional federal policing   
   cannot be unconstitutional local policing.   
      
   But yes, one may have to adjust local policing based on foreign events.   
      
   There has been an attempt to certify a legal class of plaintiffs who   
   have been victims of unconstitutional policing from Trump's tactics of   
   frequent tear gassing and similar aggressive tactics intended to rile up   
   the confrontations, and not using basic crowd control methods. The suit   
   is on trial in eastern subdistrict of northern Illinois district,   
   Chicago. Well, trial judges keep issuing orders in equity, various kinds   
   of injunctions, that 7th circuit, also Chicago, routinely overturn as   
   the Roberts court has not been allowing the use of equity to avoid   
   trials on the merits plus making it more difficult for interested   
   parties to sue by narrowing standing.   
      
   The parties who tried to get the class certified were aware that they   
   were going to get reversed at circuit and filed a motion to withdraw to   
   avoid setting precedent. Well, in the light of Goode's murder, the   
   trial court judge would not allow the motion be withdrawn. She   
   wants to force a trial upon the merits but I have no idea if a federal   
   trial court judge can force the adversaries into a trial that neither   
   side wishes to pursue.   
      
   You've got to love the irony of the judge calling the bluff of forcing a   
   full-blown trial to create a record that will then force appellate   
   courts to consider and set precedent without being dismissed out of   
   hand.   
      
   Let me explain this better. In trying to get a class certified, the   
   class action attorney's clients are people to whom facts and   
   circumstances apply but have not retained the attorney. The judge can   
   now point to a high profile case, Goode's murder. These are your   
   clients! Now, represent them in court.   
      
   Class actions are expensive and time consuming to prepare, several million   
   dollars minimum. Your basic civil rights attorney is practicing poverty   
   law. These guys were never planning to go to trial, utterly lacking the   
   resources to do so.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)