mycodendral
The explicit coordination of things like: vehicle blocking, personnel blocking, personnel removal, disruptive distraction could clearly qualify.
How the courts choose to interpret & prosecute is up to them.
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.
You can interpret it however you like.
Freedom of expression does not include freedom from prosecution for real crimes.
18 U.S.C. § 372 - Conspiring to impede or interfere with a federal 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.
Federal felony
not everyone cares about playing voldemort
If you’re willing to abandon all that over your police grievance, then sure, it’s coherent as anarchy.
If you claim otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.
I'd say yours is:
This isn't a criminal investigation
> ‘I'm not doubting that they are acting in their official capacity; obviously they're conducting a "criminal investigation" insofar as they are a crime-investigating organization conducting an investigation.’
Let’s just agree on this and move on. I’m not interested in debating semantics over whether that functionally differs from saying they are investigating a crime.
> ‘If a cop can arrest or shoot you, then you should be able to arrest and shoot cops too.’
Let me know when you’ve proposed a coherent legal framework that’s actually consistent with that idea.
You say, ‘I’m doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.’ Do you have evidence for that, or are you basing it entirely on the phrase ‘investigating a protest’? What do you think that means, and what exactly are you asserting they are doing?
Referencing Minority Report is a false analogy that ignores the film’s real controversy, which was about punishing people for crimes that hadn’t happened, not investigating credible threats.
There are no new federal crimes being prosecuted that are tied to speech. Investigations still operate under existing law targeting criminal conduct, not expression.
You seem to think that monitoring rhetoric is inherently authoritarian, but it isn’t. Those markers are used to flag potential risks, not to criminalize beliefs. The strategy is about identifying when ideology begins translating into real-world violence, which is a basic and necessary function of law enforcement, not government overreach.
It's still unclear what exactly you're asserting, though. If they aren't conducting a criminal investigation, what exactly do you think they're doing?