Ed. Note: The Spy asked Ms. Croissette to forward any information she might receive from Chestertown Police or Kent County Sheriff regarding the October 1 ICE incident.
Sheriff Dennis Hickman told me this morning that the October 1 incident near Chester River Yacht and Country Club was an ICE arrest. ICE confirmed the operation to him. Agents were looking for a man who had evaded them for some time. A woman in the car refused to open it, and she was arrested. He described her arrest as collateral. His office went to the scene later in the day. He does not know where she is. He confirmed that ICE is not required to notify the sheriff before such an arrest.
Chief Ronald Dixon wrote to me on October 6 at 4:40 p.m.: “...we have no direct knowledge of or involvement in that incident. It is my understanding that the Kent County Sheriff’s Office was called after the fact, but again, the Chestertown Police Department had no involvement.”
So the event was not invented. It was also not a kidnapping, and it was not secret police. One woman was arrested by a federal agency after she refused to open a car, during a search for someone else. Chestertown police were not there. The sheriff’s office went later, after the arrest. The letter and the comments added a brick, masks, a second prisoner, a maid, town police at the scene, and the Gestapo. The sheriff confirmed none of those details. The chief confirmed that his department was not involved.
The remaining question is narrower. Who was the man ICE was looking for, who is the woman, and on what authority was she held? An unanswered name is not an abduction.
12 Responses
Gosh, we call all sleep better knowing another brown-skinned person has been dragged off by ICE.
What a relief! I wonder what the heck was wrong with the woman not opening her door to a goon wearing
a full face mask?! And she made him smash her window, I’m sure she got what she deserves!
I also wonder what the man’s crimes are and if he is close to having 34 felony convictions like the
man in OUR OvalOffice??
S/
Deirdre, no one has said the woman was brown-skinned. Not the sheriff, not the chief, not the letter. You added the race, and then scolded the rest of us for it.
What the sheriff confirmed is smaller than your scene. ICE was looking for a man. One woman refused to open the car and was arrested. He did not confirm a mask, a brick, or a smashed window. “Goon” is your word. A person who will not open a door to federal officers does not get to decide that the arrest was theater.
The man’s crimes are the one fact still missing, and the Oval Office is not a fact about him. Thirty-four convictions in another case do not identify the man ICE was looking for in Kent County, and they do not make a federal arrest a racial kidnapping. You are arguing with a story you finished yourself.
I did not say the woman was brown skinned and I will say one is being thin skinned trying to defend what ICE has devolved into.
Being cruel and demeaning should never be a policy.
But hey, this is my little opinion.
Deirdre, the sentence is still on the page. “Another brown-skinned person has been dragged off by ICE.” Those are your words, from yesterday. Denying them today does not delete them.
Thin-skinned is a new charge, and it is doing a lot of work. I quoted you. You have answered by pretending you never said it, and by calling the correction a personality flaw. That is not an argument about the arrest. The sheriff confirmed one woman, who refused to open a car, during a search for a man. He did not confirm her color, a mask, or a brick. You supplied the color. Being cruel should never be a policy, you write, in a comment that invents a race and then denies the invention. The opinion is little enough. The sentence above it is the problem.
Who is Ms Croisette and why is she in possession of police and sheriff information about this event? A sheriff’s dept that was not involved in the incident and is lacking confirmation of those alleged events does not prove the non existence of those events.
Louise, you are treating a public answer as if it were a leaked file. I am a Kent County resident who wrote the Spy and asked for the facts of the October 1 incident.
The editor asked me to forward whatever Chestertown police and the sheriff told me. I wrote them. They answered. That is why I have the information. Anyone else could have asked. No one else did.
You have the answers reversed. Chief Dixon wrote that Chestertown police had no involvement. Sheriff Hickman did not lack confirmation. He confirmed the event. ICE told him it was their arrest, near the country club, of a woman who refused to open a car, during a search for a man. His office went later. A department that was not there does not disprove the arrest. The department that was called has already proved it.
What neither of them confirmed is the rest: a brick, a second prisoner, a maid, town police at the scene, and a kidnapping. Those remain comments. My name on the letter to the editor is not a secret.
I want to thank the Chestertown Spy and Ms. Croissette for confirming the basic facts of what I wrote regarding the October 1st incident in which a man and woman were arrested in Kent County by ICE. As no local officials were at the scene during this operation, it is understandable that they can neither confirm nor deny whether the ICE agents wore masks or used a brick to break the car window, and, unless they met with the homeowner, they might never have known that the woman arrested was her maid.
I understand that some people may object to my comparing ICE’s behavior to that of “Secret Police,” and I want to offer one simple solution: STOP ACTING LIKE SECRET POLICE! No other American institution authorizes its employees to hide their identity, and most American Police now wear body cameras.
I had no knowledge of Ms Croisette or her involvement. It is understandable why I would want to know the origin of the information the Spy said she was reporting. Also, my point exactly: there is no confirmation nor denial by any law enforcement entity since neither was there. And just like our local LEOs federal agents should have to identify themselves and carry proof of their identity. If they were wearing masks (most photos of ICE show that they do) I wouldn’t open my car door to a masked unidentifiable person either.
Louise, you are still reading the sentence backward.
Neither department was there during the arrest. That is not the same as neither department knowing what it was. Sheriff Hickman said ICE confirmed the operation to him. Agents were looking for a man. A woman refused to open the car and was arrested. His office went later. That is a confirmation, given after the fact, by the sheriff, of what ICE told him. Chief Dixon confirmed only that Chestertown police were not involved. “No confirmation and no denial” is the one finding neither of them made.
A mask does not make the agency disappear. Officers cover their faces. The agency that sent them is still ICE, and the sheriff has already said so. Wanting them to show who they are is a fair argument. The rule is smaller than the one being used here. An immigration officer has to say that he is an immigration officer as soon as it is practical and safe. That can be said out loud. It does not mean a bare face, or a badge held up to a closed window, and no federal law bans a mask. No one has said the agents at that car failed to identify themselves. A mask does not wipe out the sheriff’s account, and a closed door does not turn the arrest into a kidnapping. The record is what he said.
David, the sheriff did not confirm the letter you wrote. He confirmed a narrower event. ICE was looking for a man. One woman, in the car, refused to open it and was arrested. He called that collateral. His office went later. He did not confirm a second arrest, a maid, a brick, or masks. “A man and a woman were arrested” is still your sentence, not his.
Local officials were absent during the operation because ICE is not required to invite them. That absence does not turn the missing details into facts. It leaves them as the homeowner’s word.
And the solution is not a slogan. ICE is a statutory agency, enforcing a law Congress passed, with a hearing, counsel, and a court above it. Secret police answer to a party and arrest people for what they believe. Masks are a policy, adopted after agents were identified and threatened. Undercover work did not begin with ICE. Stop acting like secret police is a demand you can make of an agency that is not one. The sheriff has already reduced the story to one arrest.
Local and state law enforcement use plain clothed personnel and unmarked vehicles to do their work… are they the secret police?
The Spy is closing this comment thread.