6 ms·
Federal agents track down woman, demand she remove Instagram post about ICE
- lokar 3mo agoI know in CA it is a violation of election law for an armed law enforcement officer to enter a vote center unless they are responding to an incident or there to vote.
- mingus88 3mo agoAnd what are the consequences if they do it anyway?
- reactordev 3mo agoWhose gonna call the cops on the cops?
- laweijfmvo 3mo agoare the cops gonna do anything? just start a mini civil war in someone’s garage?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- kingleopold 3mo agoaka "who watches the watchmen?"
- reactordev 3mo agoExactly
- lokar 3mo agoDifferent cops. We had sheriff’s deputies out for some other issue, my impression was they took the law pretty seriously. They may not arrest them on the spot, but I think they would get ID and tell them to leave, and later file a report.
- iAMkenough 3mo agoUnfortunately due to chain of command, your good sheriffs deputies will be prevented from carrying out justice.
- lokar 3mo agoHow so? If some ICE agents show up the sheriff and state police can certainly deal with them.
- reactordev 3mo agoLike they did in Minneapolis? No, federal officers will always “out law” your local law enforcement.
- lokar 3mo agoThis situation there was very different
- lebuffon 3mo agoThat, in my opinion, is the question of the era for the USA. We were taught that the rule of law prevailed and there are "checks and balances" but it seems like there is no prescibed way to enforce the rules inside the system.
- nojvek 3mo agoUSA is trending towards right is might.
- jmclnx 3mo agoThese days, I would guess a "tsk-tsk" is said to them. The States need to grow a pair and start arresting these agents who break the law.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 3mo ago“Grow a pair” presumes the state isn’t actively achieving its goals through these actions. It’s a big club, and we ain’t in it.
- JumpCrisscross 3mo ago> what are the consequences if they do it anyway? State AGs seem to have collectively shrugged. But theoretically, a state charging a federal officer with unlawful conduct is precedented.
- panny 3mo ago[flagged]
- atomic_cowprod 3mo agoIt's illegal to do a lot of things that didn't actually happen.
- bluGill 3mo agoAre you sure about that? Things that didn't happen in the US but did happen in [insert corrupt any country] should be prevented. Even things that only happen in books/movies should still be prevented early just in case.
- tremon 3mo agoIt's also a violation of election law to administer a voting location in the nude.
- mindslight 3mo agoNot in Portland.
- conartist6 3mo agoThe content of the post deemed by ICE to warrant ~~federal prosecution~~ crime-boss-style intimidation: > BREAKING: The ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good in broad daylight has been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Minnesota Star Tribune. I think today is a great day for Johnathan to be indicted! If anyone is wondering, it would still be a good day : )
- laweijfmvo 3mo agoI don’t read the Minnesota Star and hadn’t seen any of this, so, if anything the Feds doxxed their own by bringing it to my attention.
- skeledrew 3mo agoStreisand!
- fc417fc802 3mo ago[flagged]
- sanex 3mo agoAh yes illegal according to those laws handed down by the king.
- fc417fc802 3mo agoIndeed, and your sarcastic attempt to malign his majesty is a clear act of terrorism. I can only hope some federal PATRIOTS pay you a visit ASAP. > politically motivated terrorist acts such as ... civil disorder https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/countering-domestic-terrorism-and-organized-political-violence/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun...
- alistairSH 3mo agoBut she didn't dox him - per the quote above, the Minnesota Star released his name. She simply restated what was reported. And that's before we consider the absurdity of making the names of federally-sanctioned killers private. They should all be wearing name tags and ID numbers. And she didn't actually do what the agents claimed in their letter to her: “This notice officially informs you that it is unlawful to threaten to assault, kidnap, and/or murder a federal official or that federal official’s immediate family member with the intent to impede, intimidate, and/or interfere with the federal official’s duties or retaliate against a federal official due to the performance of their duties." She did none of the above. She only said "This is his name. Would be nice if he was indicted." That's not a threat - she's not in a position to indict him or sway a DA towards indictment. His family wasn't mentioned. There was no impeding of his work,
- fanatic2pope 3mo agoI wonder how far we are away from people being arrested for holding up blank pieces of paper.
- reactordev 3mo agoI mean, if we are going to go after people for their tweets and posts, there’s a social network that needs crawling…
- dgellow 3mo agoHappened in 2023 in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_paper_protest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_paper_protest
- graemep 3mo agoThe UK case involved him being "lead away" by police and "detained" when he returned and spoke so not really an arrest for holding up a blank piece of paper. Not good by any means, but not quite "for holding up a blank piece of paper". The other UK case was about a threat of arrest if he wrote on the paper - that is under the law that bans protests in Parliament Square. Again, not good, but not for holding up a blank piece of paper.
- dgellow 3mo agoI thought detainment was a lighter kind of arrest. Seems that I’m wrong and they are distinct concepts (I’m not too familiar with the English terminology here, my bad)
- skeledrew 3mo agoWhen someone is detained, they're just a person of interest wanted for questioning. When they're arrested, it's because they've actually been charged for something.
- 3mo ago
- profdevloper 3mo ago[flagged]
- delichon 3mo agoThis kind of intimidation sucks and I'd like to see individual officers who indulge in it lose their qualified immunity and be prosecuted for it. But I'm at least grateful to live under a regime that needs to break its own laws to do this, and so such charges can be dismissed by courts that follow the law, even if they don't apply consequences to the offending officials. Compare that to the UK where more than 12k people were arrested for social media posts in 2023 alone and where it is fully permitted under the law with great discretion and supported by the courts. It's a bit like "my husband is better than yours because he doesn't beat me as hard", but it's something.
- Steve16384 3mo agoWhich of the 12K arrests do you not agree with? Or are you saying people should be free to write whatever they want on social media with no repercussions?
- bryceacc 3mo ago>Or are you saying people should be free to write whatever they want on social media with no repercussions? no repercussions from the government, yes, people should be free to write whatever they want
- matthewmacleod 3mo agoI don't think this is actually your view, though. I can't imagine that you think harassment or violent threats are things that should have no repercussions.
- Steve16384 3mo agoIf someone put my name and address on the internet and then falsely claimed I'd committed some henious crime against children (and maybe added a fake AI image) I'd certainly want the police to do something.
- inglor_cz 3mo agoMost countries in the West have higher threshold to arrest someone over social media posts. Some actually much, much higher. 12K is just a ridiculous number and indicates that the UK indeed has a free speech problem. I don't think that in my country there were more like ~ 20 actual arrests over the same problem during the same period. Even if you agree with prosecuting people for speech, why exactly would you arrest them and drag them to prison/jail? Even here in Europe, this is a sort of offense that usually results in a suspended sentence or a fine, and a physical arrest is absolutely unnecessary, unless there is a good suspicion that that person is going to harm some concrete people at a concrete time. In a more liberal country, even if prosecution over an utterance takes place, it usually happens without arrests, simply by asking the culprit to come to a police station and explain themselves, later the same in front of a court. There just isn't any need for physical restraining of that person, it is just intimidation.
- josefritzishere 3mo agoThe US regime's effort to avoid any culpability for killing American citizens is very concerning.
- OutOfHere 3mo agoMore broadly, across various instances, the administration and feds have been coming out strongly against basic freedom of speech which is a core constitutional pillar that defines America. It is highly unAmerican. Meanwhile, the crook in charge keeps doing everything he can to keep his cronies rich, at the expense of the planet's climate. Those who voted for him continue to remain utterly uninformed of the tornadoes and floods they sow.
- rekabis 3mo agoHow is this anything other than a flagrant violation of her constitutional right to free speech? This is the government suppressing her speaking the name of the executioner, which was already publicly published. If I was her, I would be launching a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the government for a violation of constitutional rights.
- anonymousiam 3mo agoWas it against the law for them to ASK that she remove her post? In essence, it was a request, coupled with an unrelated statement about the illegality of interfering with federal officers. Yes, it was an attempt to intimidate her, but she recognized it for what it was and did not cave in. Doxxing has many forms, and I agree that she did nothing wrong by citing the news source with the officers name, and offering her opinion. They did not detain or arrest her, and she agreed, and even invited them to speak with her. This whole thing is a non-story.
- anonymous_user9 3mo ago> Was it against the law for them to ASK > Yes, it was an attempt to intimidate her You've answered your own question
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- JuniperMesos 3mo ago[flagged]
- sleight42 3mo ago7 hours old and not flagged? Amazing.
- paleotrope 3mo agoShe claims that the post with his name is the one that triggered the visit.
- paleotrope 3mo agoI remember the good ole days when the White House would coordinate with former employees that got jobs with SV companies in their "online safety" orgs and would just ban or shadowban people. Less legally suspect because it was action by private companies.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- NuclearPM 3mo agoWhen is the tipping point?
- martiehenry111 3mo agoWhat happened to freedom of speech? Before you know it we won't have any freedom at all. They had no right to track her down. We can't let this continue, something has to be done.