Civil rights include - physical integrity and life and safety - issues that law officers are confronting in Minnesota as stated as 2 of the 10 definitions of civil rights. ( Google)
Edited on Jan 15, 2026 11:37am
Civil rights include - physical integrity and life and safety - issues that law officers are confronting in Minnesota as stated as 2 of the 10 definitions of civil rights. ( Google)
First - what is the sahan journal?
Second - no proof to this story
Third - why didn't the NBC etc gang pick up on this story - probbly because it is BS
Fourth - more likely scenario he got into an accident and came up with this story to get get a gullible public to pay for it
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
https://sahanjournal.com/public-safety/ice-rams-latino-man-car-south-minneapolis-immigration/
The same ICE people in Minnesota who shot a woman for blocking the road with her car now did this:
US Citizen with Latino heritage drives his car to work and gets rammed by ICE agents who racially profiled him and presumed him having an illegal status by the look of his face.
Just doing their job? Harrasment? Incompetence? Purposeful opression?
Im going with the last 3.
I agree. But why wouldn't Mr. Molina want to show his ID? I'm sure he was upset, it had to be upsetting. But I don't get why he wouldn't show his ID?
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
I agree. But why wouldn't Mr. Molina want to show his ID? I'm sure he was upset, it had to be upsetting. But I don't get why he wouldn't show his ID?
Without commenting on the specific details of this article. Many people are of the mindset that if they did nothing wrong they shouldn't have to show ID. They feel they have the right ro refuse to identify unless being LEGALLY detained or arrested. The courts have generally agreed.
Originally posted by: David Miller
Really? So apparently what the "protestors " have been and are currently doing in Minnesota is not " violating" law enforcement ? The obstructing of law enforcement officers as they carry out the law is a crime and violates their civil rights of these officers as they are doing their job.
I was pretty sure that you didn't have the English skills to realize what "violate" means. Law enforcement is not the law. It REPRESENTS and ENFORCES the law. Big, big difference.
Which I fully understand, may escape you.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
Would you have preferred that slaves counted fully? That would have given the slave states a lot of power.
The 3/5 rule was an anti-slavery measure. The word "white" wasn't in the text. It meantions "free persons", "indians not taxed", and "other persons". Not all "free persons" were white. There were "free persons" that weren't white, especially in the North.
It had to do with the distribution of representatives within the federal government.
Federal representatives are apportioned according to population. The Slave States wanted their slave population to count fully. Anti-slave states didn't want the slaves to count at all.
If, the slaves were counted fully for this purpose then the slave states would have had a huge majority of representatives in the federal government.
The 3/5 rule was a compromise. Should the anti-slave states have dug in their heels and insisted the slaves didn't count at all? Perhaps.
But implying that the 3/5 rule was somehow designed or intended to disenfranchise black people is intellectually dishonest.
I am fully aware of the history of and the rationale behind that clause of the Constitution.
I was referring to the Mormon pronouncement that the Constitution was "divinely inspired " Since it endorsed and codified slavery, God must have one hell of a peculiar sense of humor.
It was a mistake to include the slave states in the US at all. Cost us dearly.
I neither stated nor implied that the 3/5 rule was meant to disenfranchise black people. Please don't put words in my mouth. It's quite silly for anyone to say that it had that intention at a time when the idea of black people being franchised in the first place was considered utterly ridiculous. The Southerners genuinely believed that they weren't even people.
The 3/5 rule allowed the South to talk out of both sides of their mouths at once. Heck, no, they ain't people. But we wanna count 'em as people just for this voting power stuff. The Founding Fathers should have told them to fuck off.
Of course, that might have led to the United States of America and Goober Land. I'd have been OK with that!
Originally posted by: O2bnVegas
JMHO, I think that isn't quite right, David, re "civil rights". Civil rights have to do with discrimination based on race, sex, religion, disability, and other civil protections outlined. Protestors would have to be intentionally interferring with duties of the enforcement personnel based on one or more of those entitlements.
The protestors may be in violation of criminal laws, depending on the specific laws of the jurisdiction and the acts of the protestors.
Candy
Interfering with the official duties of the ICE thugs isn't violating their civil rights. David is parroting something a couple of Trump lackeys recently said, as a flaccid "counter" to accusations that the Trump gang was violating the civil rights of protestors.
There is no codified civil right to be allowed to do your job. Therefore, you are not violating someone's civil rights by interfering with their job execution.
Originally posted by: Boilerman
I'm not alone in this. I'm sick and tired at the number of people who believe that the the can defy police orders. I've had it with people believing that they can flee police with no ramifications. Police have been pussified over the years and that is slowly changing. ICE is taking none of this bull shit, and they should not.
ICE agents are NOT general law enforcement and should only deal with immigration and customs law violations...not shooting protestors.
Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis
I was referring to the Mormon pronouncement that the Constitution was "divinely inspired " Since it endorsed and codified slavery, God must have one hell of a peculiar sense of humor.
It was a mistake to include the slave states in the US at all. Cost us dearly.
I neither stated nor implied that the 3/5 rule was meant to disenfranchise black people. Please don't put words in my mouth...........
I may have misunderstood what you meant. When, in reference to "MAGA" you stated:
"Furthermore, they appear to be OK with the part codifying slavery and stating that a black person is 3/5 of a white person" (my emphasis)
It appeared to me that you were suggesting that the Intent of the 3/5 rule was pro-slavery.
It appeared that you were suggesting that is what "they" like about the clause.
If I misunderstood your statement I apologize.
Side note: Since the "they" you spoke of are racist a-holes I wouldn't expect them to like the 3/5 compromise at all. I would suspect that they hate it.
I tend to agree that the slave and anti-slave States probably should have split after the revolution. Perhaps with a temporary mutual defense treaty or something to guard against English aggression.
Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW
I may have misunderstood what you meant. When, in reference to "MAGA" you stated:
"Furthermore, they appear to be OK with the part codifying slavery and stating that a black person is 3/5 of a white person" (my emphasis)
It appeared to me that you were suggesting that the Intent of the 3/5 rule was pro-slavery.
It appeared that you were suggesting that is what "they" like about the clause.
If I misunderstood your statement I apologize.
Side note: Since the "they" you spoke of are racist a-holes I wouldn't expect them to like the 3/5 compromise at all. I would suspect that they hate it.
I tend to agree that the slave and anti-slave States probably should have split after the revolution. Perhaps with a temporary mutual defense treaty or something to guard against English aggression.
Having studied American history quite extensively, my impression from what I know about the Constitution negotiations is that the slave states didn't expect their slave populations to count at all. The original plan floated was that House representation would depend on the number of eligible voters, not on the overall population, of a state. Which actually makes more sense than what was done.
So I think the were quite happy with the compromise. The net effect was still to increase the power of Southern voters by 60% compared to those in free states.
Fun Mormon fact: the huge birth rate in Utah, from its founding to the present day, was built on Brother Brigham's intent to increase Utah's House representation and Electoral College votes. Of course, he had originally fiercely resisted Utah becoming part of the US at all (some say that he didn't want to lose his harem, bigamy being illegal in the US), but once he was pretty much persuaded at gunpoint, he wanted to get Utah the best deal possible.
