3rd shooting in Minnesota.

[Bush Master]

Looks sus to me.

[UltraBudgie]

I just searched posts using the text "ICE doesn't have the authority to arrest people for crimes outside of their purview" and the only result received was your post to which I am now replying.

I NEVER wrote what you suggested.

Do the search for yourself.

Meh, true, that's a misuse of quote marks, but you did say this:

The domain of the operations and authority of ICE is clear and does not cover the arrest or harassment of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws.

Which, eliminating parallel clauses or whatever, contains the assertion:

The domain of the operations and authority of ICE is clear and does not cover the arrest or harassment of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws.

Or:

The domain of the authority of ICE does not cover the arrest of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws.

I'm not sure what the difference between the "domain of the authority" and "authority" is, but it's all just quibbling anyway...

I think everyone here and even ICE itself would agree that it would be best if they didn't have to do crowd control to get their job done?

[chr0naut]

Meh, true, that's a misuse of quote marks, but you did say this:

Which, eliminating parallel clauses or whatever, contains the assertion:

The domain of the operations and authority of ICE is clear and does not cover the arrest or harassment of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws.

Or:

The domain of the authority of ICE does not cover the arrest of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws.

I'm not sure what the difference between the "domain of the authority" and "authority" is, but it's all just quibbling anyway...

I think everyone here and even ICE itself would agree that it would be best if they didn't have to do crowd control to get their job done?

That's ludicrous. Eliminating (what you may THINK are) parallel clauses or whatever, is not conducive to comprehension of an argument.

If you would have read the entire quote, not just a single sentence taken out of context, and then further excised to change its meaning, then you could not have misunderstood so completely.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep a nd bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

How does a well add security to free people? And, can you further explain how the 2nd Amendment mandates that everyone must keep a bear, or not? And is a teddy bear sufficient, because a brown bear is a bit of a drain on the resources? And why must it be infringed? Isn't that a double negative?

[UltraBudgie]

That's ludicrous.

Here I will let AI explain how sentence diagramming works:

The original sentence states: "The domain of the operations and authority of ICE is clear and does not cover the arrest or harassment of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws." Let's break this down in detail to understand how it implies the simplified statement: "The authority of ICE does not cover the arrest of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws."
Components of the Original Sentence

Subject: "The domain of the operations and authority of ICE"
Domain: This refers to the specific areas or limits within which ICE operates.
Operations and Authority: These terms highlight that we're discussing both the actions ICE can take (operations) and the legal power it has (authority).

Predicate: "is clear and does not cover the arrest or harassment of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws"
"is clear": This part asserts that the boundaries of ICE’s authority are well-defined.
Negation with "does not cover": This critical part indicates that there are specific actions that ICE's authority does not include.

What ICE Cannot Do:
"the arrest or harassment of people": The sentence states that ICE cannot engage in these activities for individuals who are innocent of infractions.
Qualifying Phrase: "who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws": This clarifies that the limitation on ICE's authority applies only to those who have not violated immigration or customs laws.

Analysis of Implication

The summarized statement—"The authority of ICE does not cover the arrest of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws"—captures the essence of the original statement without losing its meaning:

Removal of Complexity:
The original sentence’s broader phrasing includes the specific terms "domain of the operations and authority," as well as "harassment." The simplified statement streamlines it to just "authority" and focuses on "arrest," which is a more direct action.
Maintaining Core Meaning:
Both statements convey the same crucial idea that ICE's authority is limited. They focus on the protection of individuals who have not committed any violations against immigration and customs laws.

Legal and Operational Implications

Limitations of ICE's Authority:
The emphasis in both sentences underscores that ICE should refrain from acting against individuals who are not violating any laws. This poses important ethical and legal implications about the limits of governmental authority and civil liberties.

Broader Context:
In a real-world context, such implications could affect policy discussions, lawsuits, and public debates surrounding immigration enforcement. Advocating for the protection of individuals not engaged in illegal activities strengthens arguments about civil rights.

Focus on Fairness:
It highlights a rationale for safeguarding individuals from undue scrutiny or action based solely on their immigration status, especially when no infractions have been committed.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the original sentence makes a comprehensive statement about ICE's boundaries and their role, using detailed legal terminology. The simplified version successfully captures its essence, clearly indicating that ICE does not have the authority to act against individuals who have not committed infractions. This analysis illustrates the importance of understanding terminology and its implications in legal and operational contexts. If there are specific areas you'd like to explore further, let me know!


Your "counter-example" sucks.

[David64]

That's ludicrous. Eliminating (what you may THINK are) parallel clauses or whatever, is not conducive to comprehension of an argument.

If you would have read the entire quote, not just a single sentence taken out of context, and then further excised to change its meaning, then you could not have misunderstood so completely.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep a nd bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

How does a well add security to free people? And, can you further explain how the 2nd Amendment mandates that everyone must keep a bear, or not? And is a teddy bear sufficient, because a brown bear is a bit of a drain on the resources? And why must it be infringed? Isn't that a double negative?

I try to cover all the bases...just in case.

[chr0naut]

Here I will let AI explain how sentence diagramming works:

[color=#95A5A6][size=small]The original sentence states: "The domain of the operations and authority of ICE is clear and does not cover the arrest or harassment of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws." Let's break this down in detail to understand how it implies the simplified statement: "The authority of ICE does not cover the arrest of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws."

Components of the Original Sentence

Subject: "The domain of the operations and authority of ICE"
Domain: This refers to the specific areas or limits within which ICE operates.

Surely the phrase "domain of operations" has import and reason in the sentence?

So, why is it suddenly dropped from the 'simplified' sentence? As if "authority" and "domain of operations" mean exactly the same thing, when they don't?

Why the need to 'simplify' the sentence at all? Are you stupid?

Operations and Authority: These terms highlight that we're discussing both the actions ICE can take (operations) and the legal power it has (authority).

I have emphasized some of the wording of the previous quoted text to clarify some things things.

The chat-bot language breakdown uses the words "both" and "and" in its analysis of part of that sentence! They are conjunctive words, implying that the subjects or objects in the sentence fragment are different things and not interchangeable in meaning. You cannot strike out one and assume the other means the same thing. They are separate conceptually, but are notionally connected only by their use in the same sentence.

You are invalidly omitting "domain of the operations" from your 'simpleton' sentence. As did the LLM (It isn't because the LLM is sparklingly clever, it's because it cannot really understand human complexities and nuances. LLM's have no idea of the meanings of the words they present).

I [i]have been trying to suggest there were 'operational goals and targets' that specifically speak to the intended sphere of authority of the agency.

This is from ICE's website, from the 'About' page:

"The agency has an annual budget of approximately $8 billion, primarily devoted to three operational directorates — Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) and Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA). "

Who we are - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ICE have been performing actions outside of the remit of those three operational directorates.

Predicate: "is clear and does not cover the arrest or harassment of people who have not committed infractions against immigration and customs laws"
"is clear": This part asserts that the boundaries of ICE’s authority are well-defined.
Negation with "does not cover": This critical part indicates that there are specific actions that ICE's authority does not include.

What ICE Cannot Do:
"the arrest or harassment of people": The sentence states that ICE cannot engage in these activities for individuals who are innocent of infractions.

Bingo!

ICE cannot push, threaten, hit or use violence against people who are not breaking the law. They cannot instigate violent response against people who aren't breaking the law. They cannot restrain people who have not broken the law.

They cannot use crowd control techniques, like tear-gas and advancing shield walls, against non-violent and law abiding protestors (ICE have tear-gassed children, and nearly killed a baby that stopped breathing in concentrated tear-gas. And the mother and her children stuck in the car as ICE threw multiple gas grenades under it, were not criminals, nor were they protesting. They were parked outside of their home after picking up one of the children).

And ICE don't have authority to encourage or force people into committing infractions against the law, either. That would be entrapment. No law enforcement agency is supposed to use entrapment. If a criminal can prove entrapment, they can usually get let off, despite it being clear that they have committed a crime.

And here's the kicker, US Citizens do have the right to resist what they believe to be an illegal arrest. Shock, horror (although, it is probably safer to resist in court, because so many enforcement officers overreach, violently).

... (Snip, for brevity. The LLM response was long winded and repetitive - they just don't know when to shut-up and must always give a response, even if they have nothing much to say) ...

Your "counter-example" sucks.

You realized that? How remarkably astute of you! Surprisingly, the suckiness eluded you when you posted the example that I was parodying.



I'm actually getting sick and tired of simpletons who tell me what I said, like I don't know. I mean the arrogance and ignorance of some people!

Especially when they deliberately misquote, ignore contextual clues, and parse only partial sentences to try and justify their absurdities.

... and (slight hint) the use of an LLM, treating it as if it were an authoritative source, and not just an accumulator of commonly adjacent words, reflects on the application of 'natural intelligence'.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

And if you understood how use of force training happens in other kinds of agencies, you would know that there is absolutely a "going by". Thus the differentiation.
In my line of work, the broad 'use of force' definition is not used because it is not necessary. 
I don't really understand what your attitude is about if you generally agree with what I said. Annee called it an execution, which is absolute nonsense, and you agree. So what's with the attitude? Do we need to bust out a ruler and do some measuring or something?

Im not the one continuing this drama after I agreed with you. Bring out the ruler if you need it. Otherwise I already dropped it, maybe you should too, or dont Idc

My point clearly stated any time I take you down its a use of force and that is pretty valid in just about every agency I ever heard. Do you disagree and if you not then what is your deal because you are the one coming at Anne asking how much use of force training she has do you want to measure her too?

If you think I have an attitude it probably has to do with you bullying civilians which I'd point out is their problem with law enforcement in the first place and I think someone of your caliber should hold themselves to a higher standard, dont you?

[FlyersFan]

Why do you leftists want illegal alien criminals in our society?

You mean .... Why do you FOREIGN leftists want illegal alien criminals in our society?
There are more than a few on this board and in the world who need to answer that question.

[putnam6]

You mean .... Why do you FOREIGN leftists want illegal alien criminals in our society?
There are more than a few on this board and in the world who need to answer that question.

It's expected for Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty to absorb it because Uncle Sam and Lady Liberty always have.

Regardless of the realities, we already have 10s of millions of homegrown or legally here citizens below the poverty line. 

Way too many counties with 25% to 40% below the poverty rate ALREADY hell 17-25% is too much...

[FlyersFan]

Full Known List of Alex Prettis Clashes with ICE

When Pretti got shot it was his third run in with ICE.
The agitator had engaged them twice before with bad behavior.
The third time he shows up armed ... and engages again ... 
Absolutely gets the 'DARWIN AWARD'.   Not a smart man.
Motivated by ideological rot and a sense of lawless entitlement ...