Illegal immigrants, who dodged California ICE raid after Dem mayor's tip-off, re-arrested

a reply to: MikeA

I'm not sure what the people in Mexico may or may not have said but I'm not saying "It's just one...."

Here is evidence of the bat signal Lumenari doesn't want to believe exists: Facebook Groups Warn Immigrants About ICE Raids, Checkpoints

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MikeA

I'm not sure what the people in Mexico may or may not have said but I'm not saying "It's just one...."

Here is evidence of the bat signal Lumenari doesn't want to believe exists: Facebook Groups Warn Immigrants About ICE Raids, Checkpoints

No you didn't say it was just one. That is true. What you said was they would have been alerted anyway, so you don't think it was a big deal. It IS a big deal because it was not one criminal telling another criminal the cops are coming. This is an elected public officel telling a criminal the cops are coming. This persons job is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and to uphold the laws as decided upon buy the people for which they serve. It was in the oath they took when excepting the office. This is not only a violation of federal law, it's a violation of that oath. If this person is allowed to do this and go unpunished then we might as well open the prisons and let everyone out. On top of that, if any of us had done that our butt would be in jail by now. What does that say about our legal system?

History has proven time and again that if one person is allowed to get away with something someone else will try it too. And if our public officels are allowed to decide to implement what ever they see to be right without consulting the rest of us, we may as well throw the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the trash now and be done with it.

a reply to: MikeA

All Roads Lead to the Bank Deposit Window 😉

a reply to: MikeA

Alerting others that the fuzz, 5-0 or the po-po is on the way is not a crime and I have yet to meet anyone who has gone to jail for that.

Being a big deal or not is a matter of opinion. I gave mine. I never said it was anything other than my personal opinion and I'm standing by it, especially in light that ICE hands out notifications to businesses they are going to "raid" 3 days in advance.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MikeA

Alerting others that the fuzz, 5-0 or the po-po is on the way is not a crime and I have yet to meet anyone who has gone to jail for that.

Being a big deal or not is a matter of opinion. I gave mine. I never said it was anything other than my personal opinion and I'm standing by it, especially in light that ICE hands out notifications to businesses they are going to "raid" 3 days in advance.

I know you were only giving your opinion. You have that right, at the moment, and I can't agree but I can respect it

FYI telling a criminal that the cops are coming is a crime. It's called aiding and abetting, and lots of people have been arrested for it.

a reply to: MikeA

Telling someone that the cops are coming/around is not always aiding and abetting.

18 U.S. Code § 2 - Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

In the case of illegals, the offense happened when they jumped the border or overstayed their visa and for aiding and abetting to apply to someone sharing info on raids they would have to also be linked to that act.

Is it right? Is it worse if it is a public official? Everyone will have their opinion but I'm just saying that it isn't automatically illegal.

I'm also pointing out that one can't assume that that particular tweet was the only info that allowed people to dodge that raid.

It's hard to have any sympathy for criminals like this, and shame on that lady if she went out of her way to defend them from deportation. ICE should stay vigilant and continue to round up the bad apples!

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: MikeA

Telling someone that the cops are coming/around is not always aiding and abetting.

18 U.S. Code § 2 - Principals
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

In the case of illegals, the offense happened when they jumped the border or overstayed their visa and for aiding and abetting to apply to someone sharing info on raids they would have to also be linked to that act.

Is it right? Is it worse if it is a public official? Everyone will have their opinion but I'm just saying that it isn't automatically illegal.

I'm also pointing out that one can't assume that that particular tweet was the only info that allowed people to dodge that raid.

If that's the way you see it then don't complain when your rights are being destroyed because someone decided it was unimportant to them.

I would also like to say this. I spent 8 years busting drug runners with the Coast Guard. My oldest son is a cop, my middle daughter is an ADA, and my youngest daughter is CBP. I'm pretty sure I have a good idea about what is and is not legal. The statutes you mentioned do not apply in this case.

originally posted by: MikeA
If that's the way you see it then don't complain when your rights are being destroyed because someone decided it was unimportant to them.

Wouldn't think of it.

I would also like to say this. I spent 8 years busting drug runners with the Coast Guard. My oldest son is a cop, my middle daughter is an ADA, and my youngest daughter is CBP. I'm pretty sure I have a good idea about what is and is not legal. The statutes you mentioned do not apply in this case.

What I quoted defines what is "aiding and abetting". The tab labelled "notes" in that link says.

The section as revised makes clear the legislative intent to punish as a principal not only one who directly commits an offense and one who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” another to commit an offense, but also anyone who causes the doing of an act which if done by him directly would render him guilty of an offense against the United States.

Maybe you can link the law that you think applies in this case?

ETA: Maybe you were thinking of an "Accessory After The Fact":
Definition
Someone who assists another 1) who has committed a felony, 2) after the person has committed the felony, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the felony, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment. An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, inter alia, obstruction of justice.

I'm sure the mayor in the OP would get off by claiming that there is no way she could have fulfilled requirement 3 in that definition.