• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    Those rights would count in a country still under the rule of law. Which the US is no longer.

    • Abundance114@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      21 days ago

      Sounds like an excellent opportunity to sue them into the ground. A federal officer illegal disregarding your constitutional rights is a payday most can only dream of.

      So chill out and lawyer up.

      • hector@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        21 days ago

        The courts are fucked, we cannot sue our way out of this. Scotus will cancel it with any success, if appeals did not first.

        They already barred nationwide injunctions. The admin could round up citizens to concentration camps and no judge can now say stop. You can try to sue individually as if irreperable harm would not have haapened by then if you could even get it into court.

        Seriously that was a big deal and media did not realize it. Or tell us if they did. Scotus is nazi.

          • hector@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            21 days ago

            Actually no, qualified immunity shields them personally. A tortured precedent, if the exact situation has not happened and been sued on it gets thrown out, or some ridiculous thing like that.

            • Abundance114@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              11
              ·
              21 days ago

              Qualified immunity can be stripped. It’s not absolute. Constitutional violations are absolutely grounds for losing qualified immunity.

              • hector@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                21 days ago

                In theory or what? Last I heard they were virtually immune. Courts are getting worse, not better too, and judges decide.

                • Abundance114@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  11
                  ·
                  21 days ago

                  Judges are appointed for life; there’s really no reason why they would match lock step with Trumps orders. Yes they’re conservative (not all of them), but I don’t believe they’re going to break the law or compromise their integrity for Trump.

      • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        21 days ago

        Its almost impossible (especially with this administration) to sue the federal government and win. They have to agree to allow you to sue them before things can even get started.

    • kboos1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      21 days ago

      But you can feel some sort of satisfaction as you count them off just before they execute you.

  • tyrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    21 days ago

    Title should be changed to “ysk what legal rights will be violated in encounters with ice”

  • CactusEcho@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    I don’t think the ICE officer will care about your rights, much less about rights that they don’t even know…

  • TheFogan@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    22 days ago

    You have rights this is america *

    • Rights should be exercised at your own risk… Courts may change their rulings on them at any time, and not even the best lawyer on earth can revive after you’ve been shot in the head.
  • fizzle@quokk.au
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    21 days ago

    How can you assert any rights when facing a group of masked, armed, thugs?

    The masks allow them to avoid any accountability when they disregard your rights.

      • E_coli42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        20 days ago

        Source? I didn’t see gun rights being taken away anywhere in the US. If every protestor was armed with an assault rifle, I doubt ICE would have the balls to kill anyone else in broad daylight

        • Destide@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 days ago

          The fact that didn’t happen after someone died for upholding their 2nd amendment rights is my source. You clearly don’t have the right to bear arms Here’s my source:

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          Point to where that happened

          • E_coli42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 days ago

            I said if EVERY protestor was armed with an assault rifle. Search up black panther armed protests for examples of where this worked.

            • Destide@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              20 days ago

              I think we’re either missing each others points or in a weird agreement. I’m aware of the Philli BP show of force. Every community should do it that way, well articulated calm a show of community that can’t be used against them.

              The fact is however they aren’t in Philly and every where they have been the people have clearly had their rights squashed or are too and rightly so afraid to enforce them.

              Your point was second amendment mine was where is it in a meaningful way.

              We saw someone disarmed and shot then told not to believe our eyes.

              Now what seems to be happening is the second amendment I’d fuelling a rift in the republican party it seems. Iran looks to be the distraction from this whole dark period. But that is something that will prove my comment wrong.