4 ms·

Per thousands of videos on social media, it doesn’t matter what your rights are anymore, if you try to ask for them ICE will just become even more sadistic and

by _yb2s 1y ago

Per thousands of videos on social media, it doesn’t matter what your rights are anymore, if you try to ask for them ICE will just become even more sadistic and violent, and the DOJ/government will refuse to cooperate in bringing them to justice for denying you your rights- you have no rights or recourse anymore even as a citizen. Moreover, the agents are masked and refuse to self identify as the law requires so you will never be able to say who violated your rights- they are hiding their identities because they are committing crimes. They are not police that follow laws, they are state sponsored white supremacist terrorists.

potato3732842 1y ago
Fedcops have ALWAYS been like this. They don't go away from an interaction empty handed like local cops sometimes will because the person they're after is following the law. But of course fed-cops were never seriously prowling neighborhoods where the nearest grocery store is a Whole Foods so nobody on HN cared until now.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  Most of Federal law enforcement except for those that patrol certain, usually sharply defined (but see border patrol for a big exception) areas historically has been in one of two modes interacting: either gathering information (this includes serving a search warrant), or arresting based on an existing arrest warrant, usually from a felony indictment. In the former case, something really out of ordinary has to happen to turn it into an arrest in that interaction (though that doesn't mean you wont be indicted and arrested based on it) and in the latter nothing is likely to deter arrest. Border patrol specifically is wildly different, looking for people who are suspected of being subject to their jurisdiction without a specific indictment, detaining with in practice, if not in law, a much lower standard of suspicion than applies usually, and then generally having those detained subject to process that is almost entirely within executive branch “courts” with consequences as severe as criminal process but much lower protections than criminal process (where literal toddlers defend themselves in “court" against government lawyers.) The current “immigration” crackdown, while ICE (which historically has worked more like a regular federal law enforcement agency despite its detainees often flowing into the executive immigration system and not the criminal justice system) has been the public face of it is effectively applying the Border Patrol culture/approach far more broadly (which is also why, in frustration with the “inadequate” results so far ICE middle leadership is being purged and replaced with Border Patrol personnel.)
  - potato3732842 1y ago
    I agree with all that generally. There's real serious questions about what rights people have when being accused of non-criminal infractions and to what degree the punishments can overlap that people ought to be asking here. But nobody on HN wants to ask these questions because all the things HN wants strictly regulated are done so using the same legal theories and doctrines and precedents.
    - lukan 1y ago
      Are you aware that HN is not of a single mind?
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        You can say that about any group. Sure there's a long tail of rare people who can do better but averages and means will be what they are. The tech industry is full of fine software developers. Not sure they'd make great public policy.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - joquarky 1y ago
        I'm almost 50 and I've seen this pattern many times now. Once the fallacy of composition starts becoming common in a forum, it is the beginning of the end for good discourse.
        potato3732842 1y ago
        Oh really? I dare you to say with a straight face that opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation that people here generally likes. It is not at all a stretch to say this HN believes strongly that administrative/civil law as it mostly currently stands is highly legitimate. Of course, backpedaling and hair splitting ensues and the "doesn't represent us all" excuse flies when someone points out that those legal doctrines and, precedents are also empowering ICE. At some point you're responsible for who you associate with.
- Moru 1y ago
  It's a bit worse now [1] with Trump in lead. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUO0Plcpbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUO0Plcpbo
  - convolvatron 1y ago
    that's a great talk - from the cited executive order: There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” [ . . . ] Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
    - _yb2s 1y ago
      Absolutely insane Orwellian doublespeak... being against fascism, what our country fought for in WWII, is now "terrorism" and equal rights regardless of skin color, as guaranteed by the US constitution is now "race extremism."
- anigbrowl 1y ago
  Some fedcops were always like this, but we can look back at previous administrations for invalid apprehensions of US citizens to see that the numbers used to be much lower over the last several decades.
- estearum 1y ago
  "Fewer people cared when this was an objectively much smaller problem" is not the clever observation you seem to think it is, even with the weird Whole Foods snipe.
- mindslight 1y ago
  Playing edgelord isn't going to save you. A difference in scale is a difference in degree. When law enforcement overran their mandate, we had a shot at identifying their victims, saying their names, demanding justice, and possibly righting some wrongs in the the smallest step. When deputized white supremacist militias mass disappear people without any sort of legal process or documentation besides incrementing a counter for their bonus from King Krasnov, we likely won't even know all of their names.
juris 1y ago
XD any way to clobber cellular data and wifi connection within six feet of contact?
- cozzyd 1y ago
  Sure you can jam all cellular frequencies. Not exactly legal but certainly possible.
kbrisso 1y ago
I agree.
burnt-resistor 1y ago
The issue right now is that DHS are federal police not subject to any vehicle for redress of wrongs unless they break state law and are identified for criminal offenses that lose QI, but there is no 42 USC § 1983-like law for bringing civil rights violations claims against them. Civilly, they're effectively "samurai" who can do whatever they want because the courts, legislature, and executive branches are all on their side.
- potato3732842 1y ago
  Other than the fact that they're locking people up instead of levying ruinous fines how's this different from any other enforcer working on behalf of the a federal (or state) administrative bureaucracy? The road to hell wasn't paved in a day.
  - vkou 1y ago
    If you can't tell the difference between a fine that you can go to court over and having masked thugs point guns at you, throw a bag over your head, and disappear you without due process, I don't think we are going to find a lot of common ground. Enough of a difference in degree is a difference in kind.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- mindslight 1y ago
  State governors need to start deploying their national guards to keep law and order versus these masked gangs of lawless thugs, period.
  - vkou 1y ago
    The federal government will happily take command of those deployments. Unlike a lot of the other illegal shit that they are doing, that is a power that they legally have.
    - 1y ago
RemainsOfTheDay 1y ago
[dead]

by _yb2s 1y ago

potato3732842 1y ago

Fedcops have ALWAYS been like this. They don't go away from an interaction empty handed like local cops sometimes will because the person they're after is following the law. But of course fed-cops were never seriously prowling neighborhoods where the nearest grocery store is a Whole Foods so nobody on HN cared until now.

dragonwriter 1y ago
Most of Federal law enforcement except for those that patrol certain, usually sharply defined (but see border patrol for a big exception) areas historically has been in one of two modes interacting: either gathering information (this includes serving a search warrant), or arresting based on an existing arrest warrant, usually from a felony indictment. In the former case, something really out of ordinary has to happen to turn it into an arrest in that interaction (though that doesn't mean you wont be indicted and arrested based on it) and in the latter nothing is likely to deter arrest. Border patrol specifically is wildly different, looking for people who are suspected of being subject to their jurisdiction without a specific indictment, detaining with in practice, if not in law, a much lower standard of suspicion than applies usually, and then generally having those detained subject to process that is almost entirely within executive branch “courts” with consequences as severe as criminal process but much lower protections than criminal process (where literal toddlers defend themselves in “court" against government lawyers.) The current “immigration” crackdown, while ICE (which historically has worked more like a regular federal law enforcement agency despite its detainees often flowing into the executive immigration system and not the criminal justice system) has been the public face of it is effectively applying the Border Patrol culture/approach far more broadly (which is also why, in frustration with the “inadequate” results so far ICE middle leadership is being purged and replaced with Border Patrol personnel.)
- potato3732842 1y ago
  I agree with all that generally. There's real serious questions about what rights people have when being accused of non-criminal infractions and to what degree the punishments can overlap that people ought to be asking here. But nobody on HN wants to ask these questions because all the things HN wants strictly regulated are done so using the same legal theories and doctrines and precedents.
  - lukan 1y ago
    Are you aware that HN is not of a single mind?
    - potato3732842 1y ago
      You can say that about any group. Sure there's a long tail of rare people who can do better but averages and means will be what they are. The tech industry is full of fine software developers. Not sure they'd make great public policy.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
    - joquarky 1y ago
      I'm almost 50 and I've seen this pattern many times now. Once the fallacy of composition starts becoming common in a forum, it is the beginning of the end for good discourse.
      - potato3732842 1y ago
        Oh really? I dare you to say with a straight face that opinions questioning the legal doctrine or legitimacy of civil regulation are anything other than an occasional rounding errors when the subject is any sort of regulation that people here generally likes. It is not at all a stretch to say this HN believes strongly that administrative/civil law as it mostly currently stands is highly legitimate. Of course, backpedaling and hair splitting ensues and the "doesn't represent us all" excuse flies when someone points out that those legal doctrines and, precedents are also empowering ICE. At some point you're responsible for who you associate with.
Moru 1y ago
It's a bit worse now [1] with Trump in lead. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUO0Plcpbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnUO0Plcpbo
- convolvatron 1y ago
  that's a great talk - from the cited executive order: There are common recurrent motivations and indicia uniting this pattern of violent and terroristic activities under the umbrella of self-described “anti-fascism.” [ . . . ] Common threads animating this violent conduct include anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.
  - _yb2s 1y ago
    Absolutely insane Orwellian doublespeak... being against fascism, what our country fought for in WWII, is now "terrorism" and equal rights regardless of skin color, as guaranteed by the US constitution is now "race extremism."
anigbrowl 1y ago
Some fedcops were always like this, but we can look back at previous administrations for invalid apprehensions of US citizens to see that the numbers used to be much lower over the last several decades.
estearum 1y ago
"Fewer people cared when this was an objectively much smaller problem" is not the clever observation you seem to think it is, even with the weird Whole Foods snipe.
mindslight 1y ago
Playing edgelord isn't going to save you. A difference in scale is a difference in degree. When law enforcement overran their mandate, we had a shot at identifying their victims, saying their names, demanding justice, and possibly righting some wrongs in the the smallest step. When deputized white supremacist militias mass disappear people without any sort of legal process or documentation besides incrementing a counter for their bonus from King Krasnov, we likely won't even know all of their names.

juris 1y ago

XD any way to clobber cellular data and wifi connection within six feet of contact?

cozzyd 1y ago
Sure you can jam all cellular frequencies. Not exactly legal but certainly possible.

kbrisso 1y ago

I agree.

burnt-resistor 1y ago

The issue right now is that DHS are federal police not subject to any vehicle for redress of wrongs unless they break state law and are identified for criminal offenses that lose QI, but there is no 42 USC § 1983-like law for bringing civil rights violations claims against them. Civilly, they're effectively "samurai" who can do whatever they want because the courts, legislature, and executive branches are all on their side.

potato3732842 1y ago
Other than the fact that they're locking people up instead of levying ruinous fines how's this different from any other enforcer working on behalf of the a federal (or state) administrative bureaucracy? The road to hell wasn't paved in a day.
- vkou 1y ago
  If you can't tell the difference between a fine that you can go to court over and having masked thugs point guns at you, throw a bag over your head, and disappear you without due process, I don't think we are going to find a lot of common ground. Enough of a difference in degree is a difference in kind.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
mindslight 1y ago
State governors need to start deploying their national guards to keep law and order versus these masked gangs of lawless thugs, period.
- vkou 1y ago
  The federal government will happily take command of those deployments. Unlike a lot of the other illegal shit that they are doing, that is a power that they legally have.
  - 1y ago

RemainsOfTheDay 1y ago

[dead]