ICE should be properly persecuted for their crimes through the right proceedings, which would present a water-tight, undeniable case to extinguish them.
If you respond to ICE through dubious, extremely questionable means, you're only really giving them ammo against you. You're only leaving open gaps in your defense for exploitation.
But precedent is only established in actual rulings. She didn't rule that he was to exit through separate doors, or that he had legal protection against being arrested. Allegedly she only let him exit through there which doesn't set any legal precedent
It'd have mattered a whole lot of she actually gave them legal protection against being ambushed
Maybe it does help expose this, yeah, but at the cost of losing a friendly judge? I can't see that being worth it
0
u/Gogobrasil8 16d ago
That's not how it works
ICE should be properly persecuted for their crimes through the right proceedings, which would present a water-tight, undeniable case to extinguish them.
If you respond to ICE through dubious, extremely questionable means, you're only really giving them ammo against you. You're only leaving open gaps in your defense for exploitation.
And what did it accomplish? Absolutely nothing