Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
I opened a new thread rather than continue to post in the church protest thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducbutter
I never said ICE was blameless either. In fact I said in another thread that I believe that the first round fired by the officer in the Good shooting was justifiable but the follow ups are questionable, in so many words. I believe it was Vita's comments that I said I agreed with. With that said there's still no justification for any violent acts, no matter how minor, against ICE agents.
Does someone have the right to use violence to defend themselves against violence. Because if that’s the case then we have entered a new era where the federal police can use violence against anyone they like without any repercussions at all.
Unfortunately I believe that we’re very close to being in that position in regards to the current federal authorities. A good opinion piece by David French spells out the difficulties in reaching justice in this environment.
If the federal authorities refuse to police themselves do we as citizens have any rights for justice against government overreach? Is the pardon power too strong?
https://archive.ph/qM78f. An excerpt below. Click the link to see the archived post in its entirety.
Imagine for a moment that you’re a member of Renee Good’s family. You’re mourning her death at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, and you want justice.
So you visit a lawyer to see what can be done.
First, you want to help in any criminal investigation of the officer. You’ve got information about Good’s intentions when she protested ICE activities — information you think might be relevant to prosecutors looking into the case.
“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies. “The administration has already declared that the agent did no wrong, and the Justice Department’s civil rights division hasn’t opened an investigation into whether the agent violated Renee’s constitutional rights.
“Federal officials are, however, investigating Renee and may investigate her family, so you might need a defense lawyer.”
You didn’t have high hopes that the Trump administration would hold anyone accountable, but surely the next administration could? There’s no statute of limitations for murder, right?
“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies. “Given President Trump’s past pardons, I’d say it’s quite possible that he’ll pardon the agent. And once he pardons the agent, he’s beyond the reach of federal law for the shooting.”
But there’s state law, right? You’ve seen the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, speak out. Tim Walz, the governor, is furious. Murder is still against the law in Minnesota.
“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies, “but there is only a small chance that will work. There is a doctrine called supremacy clause immunity that prohibits state officials from prosecuting federal officers when they’re reasonably acting in their official capacity. It’s not absolute immunity like the administration claims, but it’s still a high hurdle for any prosecution to overcome.”
We can still sue the officer, can’t we? Even if the government can’t or won’t prosecute, we’ll still want to hold him liable.
“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies, “but there is almost no chance that will work. There’s a federal statute that gives you the ability to sue state and local officials when they violate your constitutional rights, but there’s no equivalent law granting the right to sue federal officials for the same reasons.
“In 1971,” the lawyer continues, “the Supreme Court created a path for plaintiffs to sue federal officials for violations of their constitutional rights. Since then, however, the court has limited the reach of that case, and it is now extremely difficult to sue when the federal government violates your civil rights.”
And there you have it — that’s the challenge any citizen faces when he or she tries to hold the federal government responsible for violating the Constitution. The government is defended by a phalanx of immunities and privileges, buttressed by the president’s unchecked pardon power — a vestige of royal authority that should no longer have any place in our constitutional republic.
I opened a new thread rather than continue to post in the church protest thread.
Does someone have the right to use violence to defend themselves against violence. Because if that’s the case then we have entered a new era where the federal police can use violence against anyone they like without any repercussions at all.
Unfortunately I believe that we’re very close to being in that position in regards to the current federal authorities. A good opinion piece by David French spells out the difficulties in reaching justice in this environment.
If the federal authorities refuse to police themselves do we as citizens have any rights for justice against government overreach? Is the pardon power too strong?
https://archive.ph/qM78f. An excerpt below. Click the link to see the archived post in its entirety.
Imagine for a moment that you’re a member of Renee Good’s family. You’re mourning her death at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, and you want justice.
So you visit a lawyer to see what can be done.
First, you want to help in any criminal investigation of the officer. You’ve got information about Good’s intentions when she protested ICE activities — information you think might be relevant to prosecutors looking into the case.
“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies. “The administration has already declared that the agent did no wrong, and the Justice Department’s civil rights division hasn’t opened an investigation into whether the agent violated Renee’s constitutional rights.
“Federal officials are, however, investigating Renee and may investigate her family, so you might need a defense lawyer.”
You didn’t have high hopes that the Trump administration would hold anyone accountable, but surely the next administration could? There’s no statute of limitations for murder, right?
“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies. “Given President Trump’s past pardons, I’d say it’s quite possible that he’ll pardon the agent. And once he pardons the agent, he’s beyond the reach of federal law for the shooting.”
But there’s state law, right? You’ve seen the mayor of Minneapolis, Jacob Frey, speak out. Tim Walz, the governor, is furious. Murder is still against the law in Minnesota.
“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies, “but there is only a small chance that will work. There is a doctrine called supremacy clause immunity that prohibits state officials from prosecuting federal officers when they’re reasonably acting in their official capacity. It’s not absolute immunity like the administration claims, but it’s still a high hurdle for any prosecution to overcome.”
We can still sue the officer, can’t we? Even if the government can’t or won’t prosecute, we’ll still want to hold him liable.
“I’m sorry,” the lawyer replies, “but there is almost no chance that will work. There’s a federal statute that gives you the ability to sue state and local officials when they violate your constitutional rights, but there’s no equivalent law granting the right to sue federal officials for the same reasons.
“In 1971,” the lawyer continues, “the Supreme Court created a path for plaintiffs to sue federal officials for violations of their constitutional rights. Since then, however, the court has limited the reach of that case, and it is now extremely difficult to sue when the federal government violates your civil rights.”
And there you have it — that’s the challenge any citizen faces when he or she tries to hold the federal government responsible for violating the Constitution. The government is defended by a phalanx of immunities and privileges, buttressed by the president’s unchecked pardon power — a vestige of royal authority that should no longer have any place in our constitutional republic.
Maybe you don't mean it this way (and maybe you do), but this reads as a 'It's tough. Tough luck.' post. For those who think giving up isn't the best option, try this Lawfare Media article.
Three ways it offers hope:
1) The Supremacy Clause is not absolute - " . . . it applies only if “[t]he federal official’s actions [were] … (a) authorized by federal law and (b) ‘necessary and proper’ in fulfilling the official’s federal duties.” Jonathan Ross' actions likely do not.
2) Minnesota could use the evidence the feds have collected when a new, pro-law administration takes over to bring state charges.
3) There are a host of state charges Minnesota might bring, not just against Ross but also against his fellow goons, that might not rely much on the feds.
Key - Minnesota is investigating and will continue to, and the county DA for Minneapolis is well-versed in charging officers. All charges on the table for them are state charges that Drumpf couldn't touch.
I'm no lawyer but my inclination is to say no, you don't have the legal right to commit violence against law enforcement at any time. Not local, state, or federal. What you're describing comes under the heading of resisting arrest to the best of my understanding but you've asked a question I'm not qualified to answer. Maybe Blackman could give you an one.
It doesn't seem "wise" to me. But you're free to try it.
As the old saw goes, "You might beat the rap but you can't beat the ride."
But the script flipped when those in authoritarian position have been give carte blanche to do what they want with the DOJ flying cover for them.
We are always one step behind Russia in these affairs. Putin currently is just going after all lawyers that he deems are against him so that Russian protesters will not have any legal aid to hire when they are arrested. Ima sure that he will reach the point in throwing both defendant and council in jail when they come to court together.
Protesters have all the rights they have ever had.
No one has the right to interfere with law enforcement. No one hs the right to interfere with a worship service. No one has the right to aid and abet a criminal action.
Peacefully express your displeasure with the policies an and actions of an official . . .YES.
Protesters have all the rights they have ever had.
No one has the right to interfere with law enforcement. No one hs the right to interfere with a worship service. No one has the right to aid and abet a criminal action.
Peacefully express your displeasure with the policies an and actions of an official . . .YES.
Participate in a criminal act . . .NO.
Yeah. donnys america is always a bit behind his buddys pooty. But I give him credit for trying to catch up.
Seems he got parity with Russia on the treatment of peaceful protesters.
One simply cannot physically interfere with law enforcement personnel conducting operations. \Doing so is a criminal act.
Threatening families of LEO is also a criminal act.
Enter ing the USA from a foreign country without the proper paperwork, in and of itself, is a criminal act . . .this is a n normal view of things then by nations around the world BTW.
Isn’t a criminal a criminal only after being convicted of a crime?
You MAGAdoodles can’t seem to grasp the rule or -god forbid - the spirit of law.
Please just use the Trump-approved term for refugees and asylum seekers - scum.
Protesters are beginning to realize they take their lives in their hands when they oppose Trump-tilda and his bird-legged ho at DHS. And no law will protect them, not at least in this “democracy.’
One simply cannot physically interfere with law enforcement personnel conducting operations. \Doing so is a criminal act.
Yet the current administration feels it can break the law by writing a “policy” that enrages people enough to actively protest…I.e. saying ICE can enter private residences without a warrant
Threatening families of LEO is also a criminal act.
So is shooting a protester in the face.
Enter ing the USA from a foreign country without the proper paperwork, in and of itself, is a criminal act . . .this is a n normal view of things then by nations around the world BTW.
First offense is a federal misdemeanor. And you need to be convicted in a court of law, not by a masked thug in para- military garb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
Isn’t a criminal a criminal only after being convicted of a crime?
You MAGAdoodles can’t seem to grasp the rule or -god forbid - the spirit of law.
Please just use the Trump-approved term for refugees and asylum seekers - scum.
Protesters are beginning to realize they take their lives in their hands when they oppose Trump-tilda and his bird-legged ho at DHS. And no law will protect them, not at least in this “democracy.’
Yet they persist.
And they will prevail.
Under Trump, laws don’t matter to him or his henchmen.
One simply cannot physically interfere with law enforcement personnel conducting operations. \Doing so is a criminal act.
Threatening families of LEO is also a criminal act.
Enter ing the USA from a foreign country without the proper paperwork, in and of itself, is a criminal act . . .this is a n normal view of things then by nations around the world BTW.
What does one do when law enforcement personnel conducting operations actively and consistently break the law in performing such duties? This is not a hypothetical question. It has been documented repeatedly of late.
Would you invite them in *IF* they knocked on your door...*IF*? They have been known not to do that.
Would you willingly let them restrain you and haul you away?
Would you willingly let them keep you from contacting a person licenesed (sp) in law to represent you?
Would you willingly let them deport you to another country?
All of the above have happened to USA citizens.
You have no problem with that?....This non-hypothetical situation.
The author of the article is making the case that if the President decides to pardon a federal employee for a crime, the laws, rules and regulations that protect federal employees from state prosecution will keep the judicial system from providing any kind of justice at all.
If that’s the case then we face a system where Federal troops or officers can “rodney king” protesters at will and the only justice that the public can expect is to name and shame the offenders.
In this hypothetical scenario if the President chooses to the only option for any kind of Justice would come from congress’s ability to impeach the president and that will still not come with the ability to prosecute the pardoned individuals.
Is the pardon power the ultimate tool to escape punishment? It sure seems like it to me.
Isn’t a criminal a criminal only after being convicted of a crime?
If a person has been previously adjudicated to be in violation of immigration law, or any other law, and has an outstanding open deportation order, ten Ice or any other LE agency can pick them up. No other judicial action is necessary.
What rights do protesters have in the US today?
