I am not entirely sure what I think about what happened in Minnesota yesterday. On balance, I think that the ICE officer was likely legally justified in his actions, even if I wish that it had turned out differently, but I am always open to counterarguments, as well as to the emergence of new evidence. These cases are always difficult, and they usually revolve around minutiae. That the crucial details of the event have immediately been swallowed up by maximalist sloganeering is unhelpful in the extreme.
As a result, I thought it might be useful to lay out how not to think about this case. Sometimes, the best way to arrive at a reasonable conclusion is to rule out all the distractions and the red herrings, and, since yesterday afternoon, I have seen so many of both as to make clear thinking quite tough. Here, in my estimation, are the main lines that ought to dismissed:
Comments