What specific vehicle(s) in that video are being blocked? The posted commentary sounds like it's an open and shut case, but this is what I saw from it:
Before we first see the Pilot, a black Jeep starts to head up the road, then decided to reverse the other way instead. Presumably this is due to the Pilot, but it is unclear of whether they approached and asked to go past but were denied, or whether they simply didn't want to get involved.
The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes, but nobody is trying to go past. Next we see another vehicle further up the road (red minivan) stopped across both travel lanes as well (it could have also informed the Jeep's desire to go the other way).
Four cars then head down the street towards the Pilot, with one pulling over to the right decently before her. The next time the camera pans back to the Pilot, it is only blocking one lane and those 3 cars have seemingly gone past.
More cars head down the street, with some combination of going by her and stopping near her. But all the cars that are stopped around her appear to have stopped of their own volition rather than because they were blocked.
My conclusion from this video is that she was not blocking traffic, but she was being a nuisance with her horn. But in this situation, that horn usage would be Constitutionally-protected speech, and any speech-orthogonal daytime noise disturbance ordinance would not be under federal jurisdiction.
Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it?
> The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes
And it stays in this position for a considerable period of time, while Good's partner is walking around outside the vehicle and behaving belligerently.
The fact that she waves some cars past certainly doesn't negate the apparent intent to obstruct the ICE vehicle.
> Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it?
You keep throwing "belligerently" out there to describe protest behavior. Yes, protesting is belligerent.
I don't see which vehicles here you are saying were obstructed
The first black Jeep is a probable ICE vehicle, but it looks like they decided to reverse without interacting with her, so that's not obstruction.
Black sedan (ICE) pulls out at 1:23, but then pulls over.
Grey SUV with plate on dash (ICE) pulls out then pulls over to side at 1:28
Green light SUV (not ICE?) drives by at 1:32 and is not seen again (goes past).
Light grey larger SUV (ICE) pulls out 1:48
Large white SUV (ICE) pulls out at 2:12
Light grey larger SUV goes around her to the right at 2:33, while another vehicle goes around her to the left (not due to obstruction, setting up to surround)
Grey SUV with plate on dash (probable ICE) pulls back out and is not seen again (presumably drives past)
From there onwards she is waving all ICE vehicles around and the escalation begins in earnest, so possibility of obstruction is moot.
It seems to me that every ICE vehicle that stopped near/around her did so of their own volition? If there was obstruction, one would expect to see some vehicles stopped around her for some time? I can't speak to before the video started, something the video didn't capture, what informed the original black Jeep driver to back up, etc.
> You keep throwing "belligerently" out there to describe protest behavior. Yes, protesting is belligerent.
You keep throwing "escalation" out there to describe ordinary law enforcement procedure. No, "get out of the car" is not an escalation; it is a response to someone who has already demonstrated non-compliance with a previous request to stop the obstruction.
> I don't see which vehicles here you are saying were obstructed
The ones that cannot continue forward in a straight line because the SUV is in the way, perpendicular to the road.
(I don't know how you're deciding which vehicles are or are not ICE in this video.)
> but it looks like they decided to reverse without interacting with her, so that's not obstruction.
This is beyond absurd. No, if I see that you're in my path, and I elect to choose a different route to avoid you, you have still obstructed me. You have hindered my passage in the direction I want to go, and you have blocked that path.
> You keep throwing "escalation" out there to describe ordinary law enforcement procedure
Yes, because it's an escalation, even if it is per procedure. This is another case of you wanting to define words narrowly to absolve the choices and actions of law enforcement officers as if they're some kind of mechanical robots. In reality we expect them to exercise judgement to minimize harm, regardless of whom they're dealing with. And we can use words like escalation when criticizing their behavior.
> The ones that cannot continue forward in a straight line because the SUV is in the way, perpendicular to the road.
That's the thing, I did not see any of these in this video, which is why I asked you to point out a specific one! Vehicles only end up stopping around her after the left lane is completely clear. One ICE vehicle even ends up in front of her because they got around her to the right! If they had to go to the right into the parking/snow, we could call that obstruction. Except that vehicle ends up stopped right in front of her, so its intent was to box her in rather than merely go past her.
> (I don't know how you're deciding which vehicles are or are not ICE in this video.)
Common sense. Seeing an agent get in, or parked around the agents milling about before it starts moving, with an eye for the larger SUVs that LEOs favor. If I've judged wrong and you think that affects my point, you could have pointed it out though.
> if I see that you're in my path, and I elect to choose a different route to avoid you, you have still obstructed me
Have you really never driven in a city? Other drivers doing weird shit and having to negotiate is the norm. If the Jeep didn't drive up to her and ask/signal her to move, then she did not obstruct them - rather they made a voluntary choice to go around. The fact you're misinterpreting everyday behavior so incorrectly demonstrates some highly motivated reasoning, so I don't know that there is any point in continuing here.
There is no "motivated reasoning" involved in using the word "obstruction" to mean what it is commonly agreed to actually mean. Nor is my implied definition of "escalation" narrow or unreasonable. (The only hypothetical alternate behaviours you have described are grossly unreasonable and would have obvious negative consequences completely not in keeping with how law enforcement works.)
I agree that there is no point in continuing here.
Before we first see the Pilot, a black Jeep starts to head up the road, then decided to reverse the other way instead. Presumably this is due to the Pilot, but it is unclear of whether they approached and asked to go past but were denied, or whether they simply didn't want to get involved.
The first time we see the Pilot it is blocking both travel lanes, but nobody is trying to go past. Next we see another vehicle further up the road (red minivan) stopped across both travel lanes as well (it could have also informed the Jeep's desire to go the other way).
Four cars then head down the street towards the Pilot, with one pulling over to the right decently before her. The next time the camera pans back to the Pilot, it is only blocking one lane and those 3 cars have seemingly gone past.
More cars head down the street, with some combination of going by her and stopping near her. But all the cars that are stopped around her appear to have stopped of their own volition rather than because they were blocked.
My conclusion from this video is that she was not blocking traffic, but she was being a nuisance with her horn. But in this situation, that horn usage would be Constitutionally-protected speech, and any speech-orthogonal daytime noise disturbance ordinance would not be under federal jurisdiction.
Being an asshole isn't a crime worthy of summary execution, is it?