Yeah, this was the part that really got me:
“Show us a warrant,” the video shows one of the two women demanding as they attempt to get between the detainers and the detainee.
“Do not touch me or impede me in my lawful duties,” the man in the pink shirt responds. “We are officers from Homeland Security.”
That’s a real bully-logic move right there. How are we supposed to know that these are your lawful duties if you’re refusing to show us your warrant or even your badge? Like, if she had blocked them at this point and the issue were brought to court (and yes, it’s ironic that this is happening in a court), then I can’t imagine a jury saying “well yeah, you can’t prevent a guy from abducting someone just because he won’t give you any indication other than a pinky swear that he has the legal authority to do it.” But, of course, the obvious implication in the moment was that since he was from the “abduct people in an unmarked van with unlimited authority” branch of the government, this wasn’t going to a jury trial, and she was either getting out of the way or she was going in the van too.
I dunno, man. It’s scary.
Yeah, I started to write about that, but it’s unclear that this guy would have actually gained anything by getting out of the courtroom. A lot of folks are released pending trial, in which case there’s really no advantage to getting your friends to grab you out of court, rather than just, y’know, skipping town. If he was already in police custody, I imagine there actually would have been more checking of the authority.
But yeah, making court a place where your enemies know you’ll be there and they’re free to come and grab you is a terrible precedent anyway. If you can’t expect due process even in the courts, what does the rule of law even mean anymore?