Hey, there! Log in / Register

ICE won't say if it was its agents who stopped a Black jogger on VFW Parkway in West Roxbury

Update: ICE changes its mind and acknowledges those were its agents.

WBUR rang up the ICE office in Boston to ask about the three guys with chest fanny packs who stopped a black jogger on VFW Parkway today. ICE said it could neither confirm nor deny whether those guys were actually ICE agents.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

ICE is Trumps open secret police. It's not wonder they won't respond.

up
Voting closed 55

Then it remains an open question whether those were some kind of suburban militia cosplay goons acting under color of authority. This should be a matter for the real police now.

up
Voting closed 110

ICE probably sees uncertainty in the public about whether they are doing this stuff here as a positive thing. The BPD should get a definite answer from them, if they ask, but the BPD may not tell us that answer.

up
Voting closed 20

VFW Parkway is State Police jurisdiction .... Not BPD....

up
Voting closed 10

I'm guessing they are looking for someone specific. They stopped the wrong guy, then they moved on.

up
Voting closed 35

ICE *is* a public agency. Therefore, WE have every right to demand answers from it. It doesn't matter whether they care to answer or not. That's not their decision to make. It's ours as their boss.

Whether these 3 numbnuts are their agents or not is not a matter of national security and doesn't have a security classification on it.

This fucked up administration where rule of law is just a hashtag has allowed them to become a gestapo (literally, Secret State Police). Let's have the ACLU take this sort of half-assed shakedown stop to court and see if there's any proof of reasonable suspicion of criminal activity for a man jogging down the street. NYC couldn't maintain stop-and-frisk...so there's no way whatever the fuck these yokels were thinking was legal either.

up
Voting closed 78

There should be a process where these guys need to show someone that they were looking for a specific person and that this "stop" (all sorts of legal boundries for what happened here) was legal or not.

up
Voting closed 10

Only now it is sprinting!

up
Voting closed 29

You clearly see this "state forces as Gods with mysterious unquestionable ways" as an upside.

All fun and games until your kid disappears incommunicado, honey.

It really isn't far from this fascist state or cosplay vigilante forces stopping citizens just because to full on disappearances of native born citizens, dear. Read up on what happened in Chile and Argentina for starters.

up
Voting closed 23

Well, if Pete Nice "guesses" that they weren't doing anything wrong, then I "guess" we should all just move on, right? Nothing to see here, folks - pay no attention to the people with guns accosting innocent people who refuse to identify themselves.

up
Voting closed 27

I guessed what they were doing. I'm not saying you should do anything.

up
Voting closed 6

Does seem that way, but they do look rather unprofessional with their mismatching camo and black, not to mention muffintops and jeans.

So, here's my two cents...legal but unprofessional? I'd guess that they are bounty or bail jumper hunters

Pete, what do you think of this guess?

up
Voting closed 11

I haven't thought about it in a while and I don't know the legal stuff behind it, but we don't have bail bondsmen in MA. I'm guessing the feds don't want bounty hunters grabbing guys and dragging them out of state or in state? (Don't see why they couldn't just bring them to the federal courthouse but again I've never heard of that stuff).

Def unprofessional although I didn't see the initial encounter. And feds almost always have badges and/or coats identifying themselves although I haven't participated in one of these things in a while either.

up
Voting closed 24

They won't care when all their funding disappears.

We pay them, they answer to the people. IF they don't care what people think then it is time for them to go to fucking hell without our money.

up
Voting closed 25

This is concerning: I'm asking if anyone can see actual firearms on these guys, I haven't studied the video with a magnifying glass, but I don't see guns in holsters, even on the tactical vests.

No agent from any office would be out without a firearm.

The rest of the gear - including badges - is easily available to any mall-ninja, but (even with a License To Carry) a normal citizen can't open carry a firearm. Open carry would take getting pulled over wearing this getup go from explainable, to a crime.

If these guys aren't armed with real guns, then the are fake - and that's really scary. To me their uncertainty and the way one guy half-heartedly asks about tattoos after "releasing" the jogger comes off as really... amateurish and awkward.

If I missed the guns, sorry and forgive me if I falsely suggested conspiracy where there is none.

up
Voting closed 15

Impersonating Federal officer is still a crime, isn't it?

up
Voting closed 13

I didn't see any firearms. Never heard of bail bondsmen up here looking for people either. That was odd.

up
Voting closed 6

doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Massachusetts has a population of 6.7 million people and is relatively silent on regulations for bounty hunters. The state allows bounty hunters or fugitive recovery agents to pursue fugitives who have fled from bail, but does not provide any regulations or guidance for them.
up
Voting closed 50

But I've still never heard of any and there aren't any statutes that I know of which would allow you to take someone by force and bring them to a court (there are citizen arrests). I always assumed since there is no exception in the law that it would be legally kidnapping. I could be wrong. The fact they did not look to have guns was interesting.

up
Voting closed 16

Bounty hunters have to register, and are supposed to have the local cops accompany them when they take custody of the fugitive.

Section 82B. Any person engaged in the business of the recapturing of prisoners released on bail who have defaulted shall register with the Department of Public Safety prior to undertaking any such activity in the Commonwealth. In each and every case where such person undertakes the recapture of such defaulted prisoner he shall notify the local police department and request its assistance prior to such undertaking. Such defaulted prisoner shall be afforded all the constitutional and statutory rights he would be entitled to if arrested by a police officer. 1999 MA H.B. 1481 (SN)
up
Voting closed 18

do what Republicans want "Oath Keeper" sheriff's to do. Apply his oath and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

up
Voting closed 22

Respond to city councilors, "You want answers,you can't handle the truth."

up
Voting closed 17

If there are three guys charged in federal court for impersonating federal officers you know they were fake. If not they were real.

up
Voting closed 10

Yes, as we know, every single criminal act results in charges.

up
Voting closed 35

100% chance you will read about it.

up
Voting closed 27

Someone would need to go and find these guys. Did anyone at BPD get a call about them and investigate?

up
Voting closed 39

Guys who impersonate law enforcement are almost always caught. Three guys during the day on the VFW? They aren't sticking around once someone pulls out a video.

up
Voting closed 34

i too have unwavering faith in a system that is currently seeking to exonerate a 17 year old who killed someone under the pretense of helping the authorities keep peace

up
Voting closed 32

And didn't stop random black guys jogging. He is also in jail and/or was charged right?

up
Voting closed 27

You don't know and yet you're commenting?

He was charged with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide, multiple charges of attempted first-degree intentional homicide, two counts of first-degree reckless endangerment, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18, and some traffic violations. AFAIK he is still in a juvenile prison in Illinois and fighting extradition to Wisconsin.

up
Voting closed 13

Asking it is as a confirmation question in regards to the first part of my sentence which I knew the answer to.

I didn't think it was that confusing.

up
Voting closed 9

And stuff them in your testalying hole.

You ain't fooling anyone here or impressing anyone with your "training" in pretending to seek info when you are really just trying to flood the scene with shit.

up
Voting closed 10

Aren't you in that field? You are a failure and should be fired and jailed right? You and Trump? How many people died because of your incompetence? Are you a murderer or just negligent?

Of course not. Why always make this something else? Are you that insecure?

I'm not flooding anything. Just telling you probably what those guys were doing, and the reasons they will give for doing it, and the reasons the federal courts will rule one way or the other. You add in all the other BS because you are who you are.

up
Voting closed 7

following that analogy, it’s probably a little bit more like if a stranger entered your room at a hospital, declined to say whether they were a doctor or not, and started doing doctor stuff to you anyway

up
Voting closed 8

Goes along well with your consistently bad faith "questions" and "arguments".

Sorry your local Q anon hole got cancelled on FB.

up
Voting closed 5

And I'll post what I think will happen in many of the cases presented here. And really show me where I'm wrong here? I predict that if challanged and these guys have an actual suspect who looks like this guy they might not get sued. Not saying that is right or wrong, just telling you how it will work. The problem is you don't agree with it and feel like you need to take it out on someone. I'm not someone you are used to bullying around though and you can't take it.

up
Voting closed 9

He didn't claim to be a federal agent.

Is not flashing an ICE badge claiming to be a Federal agent? Stop digging that hole.

up
Voting closed 31

They are discussing that d-bag from Illinois who went to Wisconsin looking for trouble.

up
Voting closed 26

You never know what’s going to happen. We literally come out the front door looking both ways. It’s very hard to live as a black man in a racist world.

up
Voting closed 9

I've never understood why all law enforcement is not required to (1) wear a uniform, and (2) have clear, unambiguous insignia identifying the law enforcement agency they are acting as part of.

Having guys run around with jeans, ball caps, vests and guns is confusing. Have ICE wear vests that say "POLICE" is factually incorrect (I don't see that here, but have seen it elsewhere).

What is the counter argument?

up
Voting closed 41

Require federal and local officers to clearly display an ID number in many places on their uniform. Citizens should be able to go to a website, enter that ID number, and see a picture of the officer to verify. It should also list which department they are assigned to including who to contact to report something related to the officer.

At no time should anyone be able to hide their identity unless they are working undercover. And if they are undercover, they aren't stopping people in the street.

up
Voting closed 34

These guys are undercover and can't have uniforms because they don't want to scare off the people who they are looking for. If they did it the right way, they might get out and follow him and see where he was going. Or drive and follow him. Once he goes into a house they can see if that is an address of interest. If not they can move on. If they are in uniform and they are spotted, the wanted person in theory can figure out the feds are on him and escape, destroy evidence, etc.

What they should do is give out cards to they and have to fill out a report as to why they stopped this guy and make it semi public.

up
Voting closed 9

Would be to allow unmarked officers to observe and then call in uniforms to make an arrest or interrogate a suspect. The increase in manpower is justified by the reduction in cowboys without any displayed badges jumping out of cars to scare citizens.

up
Voting closed 35

And probably 10 different judges would rule this 10 different ways (seizure, stop, encounter, conversation, etc). There are also different federal standards for talking to regular citizens. They can just go up to anyone and ask them how their day is, what their name is, etc. The citizen doesn't have to stop or can ask if they are being detained (reasonable person standard). Then there is the process of whether or not the feds had enough to seize the person. That is where this mans rights were violated or not.

I don't think the feds are going to double up their manpower for something like this just because the agents failed to properly identify themselves.

up
Voting closed 7

My proposal: when law enforcement interacts with the citizenry, LE should be wearing clear uniforms and insignia. There would be an exception for undercover work (i.e., drug buys). Surveillance would not count as "interaction."

The great thing about living in a democracy is that the feds will do exactly what we demand. I guess we'll see if we get outraged enough to demand that change.

up
Voting closed 41

They will do what the courts allow them to do. As long as these guys can explain what happened to someone who is able to hold them accountable, you won't ever have an impact on what they do.

And again, I think they are doing what they are doing so they don't let someone escape. If this guy was wanted, and saw a marked vehicle pull up with uniformed officers get out, he might run and that might endanger more people. It might be safer because there would be more officers around, or it might be more dangerous because there are now more guns involved and more officers who don't know what they are looking for in the first place (see the fuck up at Brionna Taylor's apt). If they just want to talk to him (like probably 1,000s of federal agents all across the country do every day in suits and ties and jeans, etc), they should be professional and leave a card.

up
Voting closed 7

The employees of federal agencies will do what they are directed to do by their superiors (executive branch) and as allowed by the legislative and judicial branches. We elect the executives and legislators, so, yeah, while "Rob O on UHub" can't demand anything with effect, "we" can.

There is also no natural limit to your rationale for these un-uniformed interactions. Wouldn't the best way to avoid suspects running and "endangering" others be to sneak up behind them and throw a bag over their head and bundle them into an SUV with tinted windows? You're a reasonable guy and I know you are not proposing that, but I don't think you're recognizing the extent to which you are minimizing a random targeted individual's safety in the interest of some amorphous societal "safety."

up
Voting closed 10

three guys got out of a car, and asked a guy what his name was. What do you think a federal judge is going to rule on that if these guys are sued?

That is all I'm saying.

up
Voting closed 3

I'm not saying that this should be found illegal by a judge.

I'm asking that we implement (through executive and legislative branches) new standards in the near-mandatory use of identifying uniforms.

And please stop blending all characterizations of federal officer questioning. Any reasonable person would feel differently being approached by an officer in a suit and leather soled shoes vs. being approached by these 3 jamokes dressed for who knows what. As they are likely to induce different reactions in the subject, we should have separate standards.

up
Voting closed 8

"three guys got out of a car, and asked a guy what his name was"

Come on, Pete. Live in context, bud.

Three white guys wearing tactical gear and no badges got out of a car in the middle of the street, stopped a black guy and asked him for his name, identification to prove it, and whether he has tattoos/markings on his arms that they can use to "confirm" NON-identity.

Are you saying he wasn't ever *really* detained by law enforcement so it's his fault for volunteering info if he didn't want to so a judge would side with the white guys? Do you think a black man in this day and age is willing to risk the chance to assert his rights and just keep jogging after these guys jumped out of their car like this because they didn't have any right to detain him? Cops indiscriminately killing people when "scared" by them during personal interactions with them have pre-disposed people to comply when they shouldn't have to.

This guy believed he went from just getting some exercise to a life-or-death situation as soon as these 3 picked him out to question. You can hear in his voice the adrenaline leaving his system as he's leaving the scene.

Your simplistic take on it trivializes all of our concerns about stops like this, federal agent or otherwise.

up
Voting closed 39

Frisk, seizure, show of authority, probable cause, etc. There are literally tens of thousands of court cases written on this and I'm just telling you what I bet those three white dudes were doing based on what I saw.

I'm not saying he was or wasn't "detained". But I will till you that if this man files a lawsuit the court will have thousands of cases in all sorts of courts that they will read and they will determine then whether or not this man was "detained".

Cops, federal agents, and other law enforcement officers will use all sorts of tricks to try to get you to give up information.

(I'm typing quick on my phone so I apologize for not writing my expanded legal opinion on the issue).

up
Voting closed 20

Based on what we know about this encounter, is this something you want your government doing? Yes or No?

Put me down for a FUCK NO.

up
Voting closed 25

Is one of the ICE guys your mom or something? You have put a lot of emotional energy coming up with scenarios making what these guys did ok. The only identifying thing they had was "a black guy" and they stop a black guy running in a predominantly white neighborhood - one that he lives in. They refuse to identify themselves while demanding his ID other than showing ID that may or may not be real. They physically blocked him from leaving the area with their vehicle after following him - didn't a guy get shot to death recently while jogging in his neighborhood? If they're really feds (recently admitted to this apparently), it was profiling and overreach - which they knew and stopped when filming by multiple people began. If it wasn't, which has been happening around the country, it's vigilantism and as far as the person stopped knows, a potential lynching. Armed citizens should not be taking law enforcement, let alone immigration enforcement, into their own hands, especially considering the prejudices these people bring to the table. Giving those same people a badge and a sense of entitlement is like enforcing an unofficial apartheid - how many people on this thread feel the need to bring proof of citizenship with them wherever they go? Immigration should go back to being under INS and the Trump gestapo disbanded. I don't feel safer with them patrolling the streets.

up
Voting closed 2

in a huge black SUV and dressed up like Proud Boys?

up
Voting closed 2

"Don't be scared, citizen. We just look like militia boys."

up
Voting closed 36

Did you miss the tactical vests, etc? Somehow I don't think anyone is looking at those dudes and thinking "just a few random Bostonians out for a casual stroll in the park".

up
Voting closed 17

Undercover... driving around West Roxbury in riot gear, leaping out of the car whenever they spot someone who looks vaguely like their suspect? And they're happy to flash badges the moment someone questions them?

I truly do not understand why you're going to bat for these idiots. If they're ICE agents, they're the most hilariously inept people ever hired by a US agency--so terrible that they make everyone associated with law enforcement look worse by association. If they're not, then they should be brought up on state charges.

up
Voting closed 31

If they legally - i.e., right way - acted as ICE agents they would have done exactly what Pete Nice described.

If this was a legal stop then there would be some kind of report that ICE officials can present. The can not confirm or deny is a smoke screen.

I see one of 2 likely scenarios:

1. The ICE brass want to create an environment of fear by leaving unanswered whether this was a stop conducted by ICE agents.

2. Or that ICE brass see this as an opportunity to use vigilantes to create an environment of fear.

We know as a fact that Trump acts as through Federal executive agencies are his personal staff, doing whatever Trump demands. By following Trump's, Stephen Miller's, etc. directions we we can conclude they are striving to accomplish the Trump administration's goal: Create an environment of fear, paranoia and anxiety. An environment which is a reflection of Trump's own psychology.

In any case unless ICE brass confirm that these 3 men are ICE agents it is reasonable that there are now people driving around Boston, who are or are not ICE agents are vigilantes, singling out vulnerable people to stop them and create an impression of GOVERNMENT watching them.

That is part of creating an atmosphere of fear, anxiety and even paranoia. It is psychological step in the direction of creating a totalitarian political environment.

Considering that Trump praises a former KGB agent who has turned the old Soviet Union into an "evolved" form of state dictatorship this is all in keeping with the mentality of the Trump organization.

Another word for this: terrorism.

up
Voting closed 17

Has the black jogger filed a criminal complaint?

up
Voting closed 28

They look like bail bounty hunters looking for someone who skipped bail.

up
Voting closed 7

Then they should not be identifying as ICE, or wearing gear that says, "POLICE"

up
Voting closed 16