The page you linked appears to be unavailable right now, so the specific “list” on that site cannot be read directly,
| # | Behavior | Estimated % Unacceptable |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cutting in line | 80–90% |
| 2 | Protecting or covering for someone who has committed a crime | 85–95% |
| 3 | Not obeying a lawful police order | 75–85% |
| 4 | Lying to gain an unfair advantage | 85–95% |
| 5 | Stealing, even small items | 90–98% |
| 6 | Cheating in school, sports, or business | 85–95% |
| 7 | Taking credit for someone else’s work | 80–90% |
| 8 | Intentionally spreading false rumors | 80–90% |
| 9 | Bullying or intimidating others | 90–98% |
| 10 | Vandalizing public or private property | 90–98% |
| 11 | Harassing someone verbally or online | 85–95% |
| 12 | Ignoring someone in distress when help is reasonable | 75–90% |
| 13 | Abusing a position of authority or power | 90–98% |
| 14 | Discriminating against others unfairly | 85–95% |
| 15 | Breaking promises or agreements without cause | 70–85% |
| 16 | Exploiting people for personal gain | 85–95% |
| 17 | Driving recklessly and endangering others | 90–98% |
| 18 | Littering or intentionally harming shared spaces | 80–90% |
| 19 | Refusing to take responsibility for your actions | 70–85% |
| 20 | Encouraging others to do harmful or illegal acts | 90–98% |
From current reporting, several broad factions are visible around the Minnesota ICE shooting and protests.
[2][3][4][5]Frontline protest organizers and marchers
Immigrant‑rights groups, local community coalitions, and student groups whose primary goal is to end or sharply limit ICE presence and operations in Minnesota.
Progressive elected officials and advocacy NGOs
Democratic state and local officials and civil‑liberties or immigrant‑rights organizations focused on investigations, legal constraints on ICE, and nonviolent protest.
Law‑enforcement and security actors
ICE agents, DHS officials, some local police, and allied unions emphasizing order, enforcement of federal law, and officer safety.
Pro‑enforcement / pro‑Trump coalition
Conservative activists and some national figures and media emphasizing “law and order,” supporting continued or expanded ICE operations, and denouncing “anti‑ICE” protests.
Lists of “social norms” and “polite society” rules typically include ideas like respecting personal space, avoiding shouting, keeping conversation civil, not blocking others’ way, and listening before judging, which can be used as a proxy for the unavailable list.
[6][7][8]Norms about civility and not shouting
Frontline protest organizers tend to endorse norms of civility and nonviolent discipline because these help maintain public legitimacy and reduce pretexts for crackdowns.
ICE‑aligned actors also endorse civility but generally invoke it to argue protesters should reduce confrontations, avoid harassing officers, and respect “law and order.”
[2][4]Norms about not blocking traffic or entrances
Many protesters view strict enforcement of anti‑blocking norms as a way to undercut protest effectiveness, since marches, sit‑ins, and blockades rely on some disruption of space.
Law‑enforcement and pro‑ICE factions lean heavily on these norms to justify dispersing crowds, declaring unlawful assemblies, and criticizing disruptive tactics.
[3][2]Norms about truthfulness and avoiding rumors
Protester‑aligned groups often point to conflicting official accounts of the shooting as potential violations of honesty norms and call for transparency, body‑cam footage releases, and independent investigations.
ICE and pro‑enforcement supporters use the same norm to criticize what they see as “anti‑ICE propaganda” or premature conclusions about officers’ motives.
[4][2]Norms about de‑escalation
Many protest organizers promote de‑escalation, including marshals and training, to keep marches peaceful in the face of a heavy ICE or police presence.
ICE‑aligned actors frame de‑escalation in terms of complying with lawful orders, not throwing objects, and keeping distance from secured perimeters to maintain calm.
[2]Norms about respecting institutions and rule of law
Reform‑oriented protesters stress legal challenges, hearings, and elections, while more abolition‑oriented groups question or reject the legitimacy of ICE as an institution.
ICE, DHS, and pro‑enforcement groups present respect for institutional authority and law enforcement as central norms and see rejection of ICE’s role as a serious violation.
[2][4]Norms about empathy and helping vulnerable people
Immigrant‑rights and community groups place empathy and solidarity with vulnerable neighbors at the center of their message, highlighting asylum seekers, families, and long‑time residents as people to be protected.
ICE‑aligned messaging often emphasizes deterrence and legal compliance, and while there can be talk of “compassion with enforcement,” hospitality is usually secondary to enforcement priorities.
[4][2]Norms that tend to favor protester factions
Empathy and solidarity with vulnerable neighbors, speaking up when witnessing perceived injustice, and demanding transparency and honesty from authorities naturally reinforce protester narratives.
Norms that tend to favor ICE‑aligned factions
Respect for institutional authority and law enforcement, avoiding disruption of public order, and obedience to lawful orders and cooperation with investigations align more closely with ICE and pro‑enforcement narratives.
Norms both sides claim
Civility, nonviolence, avoidance of misinformation, and de‑escalation are claimed by both sides but framed differently, with each camp using these norms to critique the other’s behavior.
Leave a Reply