This refers to physical impediments. Spreading legal information is not an impediment, it is free speech. If all info could be interpreted as impediments to federal officers then phones, the internet, the human voice, etc would be illegal
No, they are organizing legally, of course there will be bad actors, but blocking an agent out of bad faith is certainly less of a crime than a bad faith ICE agent killing someone for their assumptions
“ If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both”
Trump’s speech does not meet that standard. It lacked coordination, targeting, or intent to physically interfere. The Minnesota case is different because it includes coordinated dispatch, targeting of ICE activity, and sharing de-arrest material with the stated intent to impede operations. That coordination and intent is the legal difference.
You keep commenting to cite this statute when you clearly have not actually read what it says. Peaceful protest is explicitly protected by the first amendment.
The statute defines a crime that is distinguishable from peaceful protest/1A. You are free to interpret that however you like in relation to what is occurring.
There's been lots of legal writing pointing out these statutes basically refer to impeding an officer by threat or physical force, which that statute you cite states. It doesn't refer to anything about providing food to someone who is fearing for their lives and won't leave the home, or communicating about the publicly observed whereabouts of law enforcement.
Are these federal officers? They’re men in masks with camo and body armor kidnapping people off the streets and refusing to show identification beyond a patch that says “ICE”.
Yes, they are federal officers. There is no pattern of mass kidnappings by impersonators occurring here.
Interpreting masked officers in tactical gear as kidnappers, or claiming that a patch saying “ICE” is insufficient identification, is not a legally valid basis for suspicion or resistance.
Sure, most of the people kidnapping people off the streets and incarcerating or deporting them without due process in violation of the constitution are federal officers. But unless they identify themselves clearly, you’d be stupid to not resist.
Sure, but you should read what "impede" and "interfere" mean both in the regs and court precedent. Following ICE agents around is neither impeding or interfering by current federal court definitions. But yeah... that can change quickly.
“Free speech” is a concept not a law. The first amendment protects certain types of speech. Whether something is free speech or not does not depend on the US government’s opinion or the Chinese government or your mother in law.
Publishing locations alone is not conspiracy to commit a crime. If ICE is impeded as a result of this information, that’s not enough. Conspiracy requires the government to prove that multiple people intended to impede them.
18 U.S.C. § 372 — Conspiracy to impede or injure officer
If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.
Intimidation, or threat at the very least seems applicable here if you have any idea of what's going on in Minnesota and what these Signal chats are being used for.
Blocking law enforcement's vehicles and their person (I saw several protestors put hands on officers), when they are conducting arrests, certainly seems to fit the bill.
I've seen pictures of someone with a damaged finger. Given the wild differences between video evidence and what the top levels of the administration claim happen, I think a healthy degree of scepticism is warrented.
Could easily have been hurt by their own flashbang devices or caught it in a car door.
The point is to establish that the protest has not been entirely peaceful, which raises the possibility of conspiracy covering non-protected actions. The subthread is about what they plan to charge people with, not about exactly what actually happened and whether it meets legal standards. That's what investigations and trials are for.
That relatively small in-person games would use rigged shuffling machines, cameras, see-through playing cards, lenses etc seems to all but guarantee that every manner of deception and fraud is being perpetrated by all online gambling sites.
Just stuffing any table with two or more "players/bots" that can see all the cards or share their hands with each other would guarantee enormous payouts on the hundreds of millions at stake in the industry. There are obviously a million more things sites could be doing to take money and there's absolutely no source code control the government does to ensure that the whatever code the regulators look at is running in production and that no other systems are running in parallel, like a bot service that colludes to win.
Knowing nothing about the case, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is reality tv distraction porn that's going to end up in shakedowns and pardons being tied up in a nice little bow in the final episode.
I switched from Android to iOS exclusively because of Liquid Glass. It's amazing. I'll just sit there and drag the glass back and forth over different things on my screen and stare in awe.
To be fair, it is an affront to usability, but it looks pretty the first time you play with the distortion of several confusing layers of Glass. I had to play with different wallpapers to find one who distorted the better.
I dont mean to impugn, but that sounds like how someone would describe a toddler being given an ipad. I turn off animations and use apps with an OLED theme.
The first thing I do every time I install a new version of iOS or get a new iPhone is disable all of the animations and enable reduce visual motion in accessibility. Not only is it faster in the countless cases where overambitious UI designers subject us to >0.2s animations, but it dramatically extends battery life
I would do this on macOS if it could make it faster to switch Spaces; unfortunately it does not (just makes the animation into an ugly fade that still takes just as long).
In iOS <= 18 reduce motion works fine but in iOS 26 it just changes animation to be symmetrical and fast. It still an animation and being fast it looks almost like flicker. I don't like animations in UI but had to disable this option in iOS 26.
But wait, have you noticed that it's named "Liquid Glass(TM)", but none of the glass is actually liquid, or even flowing? Everything is solid pieces of glass. You fooled us again, Apple!
I mean I do remember the feeling of switching over to KDE from Windows around.....2005-2010 era and just being blown away by how pretty everything was. I yearn for that feeling again. But I have both android and iOS devices at home and the liquid glass is just......not that nice(imho). I hope I'll get that feeling of awe with computers at some point again.
Yeah, i heard the P320 was originally a non-striker system that they modified to become a striker system to try and save research/development costs from creating a striker system from the ground up, which led to these wildly low tolerances in the FCU and ultimately a poorly designed firearm.
I’ve heard of no issues from the P365 models. A knowledgeable firearm instructor I talked to mentioned the P320 and P365 are entirely different designs internally, and the P365 holds up to Sigs (previously) positive reputation
reply