ICE is not immune from aiding and abetting charges, nor is it immune from aiding escape charges. When they deport someone for a civil violation or even a misdemeanor and it causes that person to escape custody and trial for a felony, ICE has committed a felony too.
Just as a cop cannot lawfully go down to the courthouse and release someone who is awaiting a felony trial, ICE cannot either.
ICE agents are not immune to arrest or prosecution for aiding and abetting the escape of a criminal. The fact they are deporting people for civil violations so that they cannot stand trial for misdemeanors or felonies is not a shield against prosecution.
Since jailbreak charges can reach 20 years in prison, just enforcing existing laws would be all the teeth needed.
As it's phrased, it's not just moderation - you could sue Senator Hawley for putting his own picture on his own website, just because you don't like his looks!
"A coalition of law enforcement groups said in a statement Monday that releasing records, including complaints, could leave officers facing “unavoidable and irreparable harm to reputation and livelihood.”"
That IS the normal consequence of doing bad things on the job - your reputation sinks through the floor and your continued employment becomes iffy.
"So, guided by his own wrong assumptions, the sheriff is now loading up on civil causes of action."
Title 18, Sections 241 & 242 of the US Code define what the Sheriff is doing and ordering his Deputies to do to be a federal crime - a misdemeanor if committed while alone and unarmed, a felony if visibly in possession of a firearm or when two or more people work together. A Deputy arresting someone and the booking desk supervisor booking the person meets the legal requirements of working together.
Georgia has one of the strongest citizen's arrest statutes in the country. State law authorizes any citizen to make an arrest for any crime they personally witness without need of a warrant, and to use any necessary force to prevent resistance or escape from that arrest if it is for a felony (Georgia Code § 17-4-60).
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1948 (US v. Di Re) that anyone authorized by a state law (common or statutory) to make an arrest for a violation of state law is also authorized to make an arrest for a violation of federal law, under the same restrictions.
Don't (just) sue the Sheriff who decided to make himself and his Deputies domestic enemies of the Constitution. ARREST THEM!
What would really make this effective is a city ordinance that declares that any on-duty action taken by a police officer who has their badge covered or body camera off/non-functional will be considered an action by a private citizen.
Therefore the police insurance won't cover them, they won't be shielded by qualified immunity, they will be subject to all the same laws non-cops are to the fullest extent of the law, any arrests they make are considered citizen's arrests, they can't lawfully possess a firearm where a private citizen could not, their court testimony is treated the same as that of any citizen, etc.
No need for anyone to file paperwork or appeal something or declare anything, just make their police powers automatically null and void.
Actually, this is a centrist site. Fake news created by either side is optional here. This site deals in actual facts, which by their very nature contradict the lies and fake news propaganda of the right and left.
When we talk about peaceful versus violent protest tactics, we're not talking about a toggle switch. We're talking about a dial with many settings.
Going directly from mostly passively asking for change to burning down the city skips over all those intermediate options. Doing so de-legitimizes the protesters. Makes it look like they're not interested in solutions, they just want to be angry and act out.
Temper tantrums aren't attractive or convincing to rational adults when toddlers pitch a fit, and they're even less so when it's adults doing it.
Why not try one of those intermediate, more active/violent options before jumping directly to the dial's maximum? Nobody ever tries them.
For example: what would happen if the police attacked a crowd with weapons that it is a war crime to use on a battlefield, and instead of throwing bottles the crowd started making mass arrests upon the police?
The courts have drawn a very bright, very solid line at the idea that ANYONE can decide their own case. This is why resisting arrest even if the arrest is blatantly illegal is ALWAYS considered an illegal act by the courts.
So as a protest tactic, put that to the test. If the tactic works, the system will be swamped with cops who are under arrest whose cases need to be processed and decided, even if that decision is a dismissal. If the system ignores the fact that the cops were arrested - and almost certainly resisted arrest with violence - it will serve to prove to everyone and anyone that the system is in violation of its own most sacred rules!
How long will a system proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be hopelessly corrupt be able to continue doing business as usual? Everyone will know it's a joke, that the rule of law is dead, that only violent force perpetuates it. Instead of a small fringe knowing that, EVERYONE will.
Ironically, if you were to rebel against the US government and the police shot tear gas at you, throwing the grenade back would make you a war criminal.
Peaceful protests rely upon the authorities actually having consciences. When they lack those, a peaceful protest is just a fancier way of committing suicide.
Gandhi himself once said that he chose nonviolence as the tactic with the best chance of success, and that if he had believed the British people lacked consciences, he'd have been shooting guns and throwing bombs instead.
Even just being armed and capable of defending your peaceful protest can work wonders - simply being armed isn't an active threat, otherwise a cop being armed would justify gunfire.
Look at the contrast between the California lockdown protest and the Michigan lockdown protest for example. Both protests organized by the same people and protesting the same thing, both engaging in civil disobedience to social distancing and mask orders, both had angry crazies who screamed in the faces of cops, both obeyed the law scrupulously aside from that civil disobedience.
But in one state, having guns was illegal so the law-abiding protest was unarmed. In the other state, guns in the capitol are completely legal so long as you don't try to conceal them. That protest also obeyed all laws except the one they were civilly disobeying. And that's where their experiences diverged.
The California protest was attacked by police, despite the fact that the attack was a federal felony (18 USC 241 & 242) for every officer involved. The cops made dozens of arrests, many of them false arrests (a second federal felony).
The Michigan protest both outnumbered and outgunned the police, who were professional, polite, and didn't commit any of those federal felonies.
Right-leaning activists have noticed something Left-leaning activists are willfully ignoring (given how guns being useful contradicts their ideological dogma) - police know full well they will never be prosecuted for committing those federal felonies, and that if sued the worst thing that happens is their union pays the settlement or judgment, the cop never paying a penny at any stage of the lawsuit.
But when the crowd can return fire if police fire indiscriminately into that crowd, police never seem to open fire at all.
I dislike how people go directly from peaceful protests to violent riots with nothing in between.
It's not a toggle. We're not required to switch between perfectly civilized and perfectly uncivilized.
I've been suggesting for years that a good middle ground, especially as a protest tactic, is to ARREST the bad cops. An arrest that is 100% legally binding according to every court from lowest to highest, city and county and state and federal, can be accomplished using words alone. Resisting arrest is just as illegal for a cop as it is for anyone else.
If you're too angry to just use words, then the thought that power-drunk corrupt cops are almost guaranteed to resist that arrest, and citizen's making an arrest are just as authorized to use force as a cop is - and in some states, citizen's actually have GREATER authority to use force against someone resisting arrest than cops do!
Any tactic that police use, that their oversight has declared to be a-okay is on the table for someone arresting a cop. Body slam as the first sign of trouble? That's just as lawful for us as for them. Choke hold in lieu of handcuffs? Just as lawful. Leading with a taser or even gunfire and informing them of the arrest after pulling the trigger? Just as lawful for us as for them.
Cops are lawfully allowed to use force to defend themselves or others because they are citizens and all citizens can lawfully do that. It's not because they are cops. Any force, even deadly force, that a cop is allowed to use is also allowed for a private citizen to use, in the same circumstances.
Acting alone would be silly, but nothing prevents a protest group from observing cops until one commits an arrestable offense and then sending in a point man or two to make the arrest, while the rest of the group lurks out of sight with rifles. When the cop violently resists, point out the riflemen and suggest they surrender. If they refuse at that point, shooting them to death is perfectly legal.
It'd only be first degree murder if they planned to shoot the cop whether he surrendered or not, after all.
Personally, I'd love to hear about a cop being killed while resisting arrest one of these days.
The thing to keep in mind is that even if those officers didn't realize someone was being killed right next to them, that lack of awareness is legally irrelevant.
All that matters to make you an accomplice is being with the person who committed the crime. They knew or reasonably should have known the force was excessive, therefore the death that resulted is on them. That's how broad the laws defining who is an accomplice are.
Non-police have been convicted of murder for doing far less than those cops other than the one kneeling on the guy's neck did - and their convictions are considered appropriate and just by the courts.
All you need to get around the perjury charge in section 512 is to do this:
Say "Hey, go over the web and make me a list of what you think should be taken down" to someone.
Then when they give you the list, run it through a script that auto-generates takedown notices without actually reading the list yourself.
The result is the person issuing the takedowns lacks the wilfullness and knowledge required to trigger 512(f), while the person making the list didn't issue any takedowns so they didn't commit perjury either.
On the post: German Minister Files Criminal Complaint Against A Journalist Who Said Police Officers Are 'Trash People'
Minister Horst Seehofer is a trash person.
FTFY
On the post: FDA First: Agency Approves Video Game Treatment For ADHD, Requires A Prescription
Over the Counter?
I wonder - given the FDA is requiring a prescription, wouldn't that mean that playing the game without one would be a criminal act?
On the post: Cheez-It Issues A Bogus DMCA Notice To Nuke A Picture It Didn't Like, Receives Dozens Of Offensive Images In Response
Proof of bad faith?
It's very hard to prove a DMCA takedown is worthy of a perjury charge because it's all but impossible to prove bad faith.
But that message to Twitter asking for censoring of the image makes a content-based statement about why it should be censored.
It seems to me that that would constitute bad faith.
On the post: Federal Court Says ICE Can No Longer Enter New York Courthouses Just To Arrest Alleged Undocumented Immigrants
Re:
ICE is not immune from aiding and abetting charges, nor is it immune from aiding escape charges. When they deport someone for a civil violation or even a misdemeanor and it causes that person to escape custody and trial for a felony, ICE has committed a felony too.
Just as a cop cannot lawfully go down to the courthouse and release someone who is awaiting a felony trial, ICE cannot either.
On the post: Federal Court Says ICE Can No Longer Enter New York Courthouses Just To Arrest Alleged Undocumented Immigrants
Re: Now let's add teeth
ICE agents are not immune to arrest or prosecution for aiding and abetting the escape of a criminal. The fact they are deporting people for civil violations so that they cannot stand trial for misdemeanors or felonies is not a shield against prosecution.
Since jailbreak charges can reach 20 years in prison, just enforcing existing laws would be all the teeth needed.
On the post: AT&T Says Being Misleading About 'Unlimited' Data Plans Was Ok, Because Reporters Told Consumers It Was Being Misleading
By this logic...
...wouldn't it mean that Ponzi schemes aren't illegal anymore?
On the post: Report Says CIA's Hacking Unit -- Home To The Vault 7 Exploits -- Deployed Almost No Internal Security Measures
Well of course not. Nobody would DARE to hack the CIA!
On the post: Senator Hawley's Section 230 Reform Even Dumber Than We Expected; Would Launch A Ton Of Vexatious Lawsuits
Re:
As it's phrased, it's not just moderation - you could sue Senator Hawley for putting his own picture on his own website, just because you don't like his looks!
On the post: Federal Court Affirms Activision's First Amendment Rights In Using Humvees in 'Call Of Duty' Game
Re: Re:
No. Grind your reading skill a bit, then go back and read his comment again.
On the post: Federal Court Affirms Activision's First Amendment Rights In Using Humvees in 'Call Of Duty' Game
Re:
This. Companies pay big bucks for product placement in media, so why was AM General so unhappy with their product being placed for free?
On the post: New York Legislators Dump Law That Allowed PDs To Withhold Officers' Disciplinary Records
Well yeah...
"A coalition of law enforcement groups said in a statement Monday that releasing records, including complaints, could leave officers facing “unavoidable and irreparable harm to reputation and livelihood.”"
That IS the normal consequence of doing bad things on the job - your reputation sinks through the floor and your continued employment becomes iffy.
On the post: Sheriff Goes All In On Violating The First Amendment After Assaulting A Protester For Carrying A 'F*CK TRUMP' Sign
Civil Causes Of Action? Ha! Try CRIMINAL!
"So, guided by his own wrong assumptions, the sheriff is now loading up on civil causes of action."
Title 18, Sections 241 & 242 of the US Code define what the Sheriff is doing and ordering his Deputies to do to be a federal crime - a misdemeanor if committed while alone and unarmed, a felony if visibly in possession of a firearm or when two or more people work together. A Deputy arresting someone and the booking desk supervisor booking the person meets the legal requirements of working together.
Georgia has one of the strongest citizen's arrest statutes in the country. State law authorizes any citizen to make an arrest for any crime they personally witness without need of a warrant, and to use any necessary force to prevent resistance or escape from that arrest if it is for a felony (Georgia Code § 17-4-60).
The US Supreme Court ruled in 1948 (US v. Di Re) that anyone authorized by a state law (common or statutory) to make an arrest for a violation of state law is also authorized to make an arrest for a violation of federal law, under the same restrictions.
Don't (just) sue the Sheriff who decided to make himself and his Deputies domestic enemies of the Constitution. ARREST THEM!
On the post: Chicago Mayor Says City's Police Officers Will Be 'Stripped Of Their Powers' If They Turn Off Their Cameras
Re: 'If the uniform is off, you're not a cop.'
What would really make this effective is a city ordinance that declares that any on-duty action taken by a police officer who has their badge covered or body camera off/non-functional will be considered an action by a private citizen.
Therefore the police insurance won't cover them, they won't be shielded by qualified immunity, they will be subject to all the same laws non-cops are to the fullest extent of the law, any arrests they make are considered citizen's arrests, they can't lawfully possess a firearm where a private citizen could not, their court testimony is treated the same as that of any citizen, etc.
No need for anyone to file paperwork or appeal something or declare anything, just make their police powers automatically null and void.
On the post: Judge Orders Down 'N Out Burger Joint To Hand Over All Signage To In-N-Out, Which Has Almost No Presence In Australia
Re: Re: "Customer" Confusion
Actually, this is a centrist site. Fake news created by either side is optional here. This site deals in actual facts, which by their very nature contradict the lies and fake news propaganda of the right and left.
On the post: Peaceful Protests Around The Nation Are Being Greeted By Police Violence. Remind Me Again How Peaceful Protests Are Better?
Violence is a spectrum
When we talk about peaceful versus violent protest tactics, we're not talking about a toggle switch. We're talking about a dial with many settings.
Going directly from mostly passively asking for change to burning down the city skips over all those intermediate options. Doing so de-legitimizes the protesters. Makes it look like they're not interested in solutions, they just want to be angry and act out.
Temper tantrums aren't attractive or convincing to rational adults when toddlers pitch a fit, and they're even less so when it's adults doing it.
Why not try one of those intermediate, more active/violent options before jumping directly to the dial's maximum? Nobody ever tries them.
For example: what would happen if the police attacked a crowd with weapons that it is a war crime to use on a battlefield, and instead of throwing bottles the crowd started making mass arrests upon the police?
The courts have drawn a very bright, very solid line at the idea that ANYONE can decide their own case. This is why resisting arrest even if the arrest is blatantly illegal is ALWAYS considered an illegal act by the courts.
So as a protest tactic, put that to the test. If the tactic works, the system will be swamped with cops who are under arrest whose cases need to be processed and decided, even if that decision is a dismissal. If the system ignores the fact that the cops were arrested - and almost certainly resisted arrest with violence - it will serve to prove to everyone and anyone that the system is in violation of its own most sacred rules!
How long will a system proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be hopelessly corrupt be able to continue doing business as usual? Everyone will know it's a joke, that the rule of law is dead, that only violent force perpetuates it. Instead of a small fringe knowing that, EVERYONE will.
And that's a LOT of votes come election day.
On the post: Let. The Motherfucker. Burn.
Re:
Ironically, if you were to rebel against the US government and the police shot tear gas at you, throwing the grenade back would make you a war criminal.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re: Did peaceful protests REALLY fail?
Peaceful protests rely upon the authorities actually having consciences. When they lack those, a peaceful protest is just a fancier way of committing suicide.
Gandhi himself once said that he chose nonviolence as the tactic with the best chance of success, and that if he had believed the British people lacked consciences, he'd have been shooting guns and throwing bombs instead.
Even just being armed and capable of defending your peaceful protest can work wonders - simply being armed isn't an active threat, otherwise a cop being armed would justify gunfire.
Look at the contrast between the California lockdown protest and the Michigan lockdown protest for example. Both protests organized by the same people and protesting the same thing, both engaging in civil disobedience to social distancing and mask orders, both had angry crazies who screamed in the faces of cops, both obeyed the law scrupulously aside from that civil disobedience.
But in one state, having guns was illegal so the law-abiding protest was unarmed. In the other state, guns in the capitol are completely legal so long as you don't try to conceal them. That protest also obeyed all laws except the one they were civilly disobeying. And that's where their experiences diverged.
The California protest was attacked by police, despite the fact that the attack was a federal felony (18 USC 241 & 242) for every officer involved. The cops made dozens of arrests, many of them false arrests (a second federal felony).
The Michigan protest both outnumbered and outgunned the police, who were professional, polite, and didn't commit any of those federal felonies.
Right-leaning activists have noticed something Left-leaning activists are willfully ignoring (given how guns being useful contradicts their ideological dogma) - police know full well they will never be prosecuted for committing those federal felonies, and that if sued the worst thing that happens is their union pays the settlement or judgment, the cop never paying a penny at any stage of the lawsuit.
But when the crowd can return fire if police fire indiscriminately into that crowd, police never seem to open fire at all.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Sliders not Toggles
I dislike how people go directly from peaceful protests to violent riots with nothing in between.
It's not a toggle. We're not required to switch between perfectly civilized and perfectly uncivilized.
I've been suggesting for years that a good middle ground, especially as a protest tactic, is to ARREST the bad cops. An arrest that is 100% legally binding according to every court from lowest to highest, city and county and state and federal, can be accomplished using words alone. Resisting arrest is just as illegal for a cop as it is for anyone else.
If you're too angry to just use words, then the thought that power-drunk corrupt cops are almost guaranteed to resist that arrest, and citizen's making an arrest are just as authorized to use force as a cop is - and in some states, citizen's actually have GREATER authority to use force against someone resisting arrest than cops do!
Any tactic that police use, that their oversight has declared to be a-okay is on the table for someone arresting a cop. Body slam as the first sign of trouble? That's just as lawful for us as for them. Choke hold in lieu of handcuffs? Just as lawful. Leading with a taser or even gunfire and informing them of the arrest after pulling the trigger? Just as lawful for us as for them.
Cops are lawfully allowed to use force to defend themselves or others because they are citizens and all citizens can lawfully do that. It's not because they are cops. Any force, even deadly force, that a cop is allowed to use is also allowed for a private citizen to use, in the same circumstances.
Acting alone would be silly, but nothing prevents a protest group from observing cops until one commits an arrestable offense and then sending in a point man or two to make the arrest, while the rest of the group lurks out of sight with rifles. When the cop violently resists, point out the riflemen and suggest they surrender. If they refuse at that point, shooting them to death is perfectly legal.
It'd only be first degree murder if they planned to shoot the cop whether he surrendered or not, after all.
Personally, I'd love to hear about a cop being killed while resisting arrest one of these days.
On the post: Let's Stop Pretending Peaceful Demonstrations Will Fix The System. 'Peace Officers' Don't Give A Shit About Peace.
Re: Re:
The thing to keep in mind is that even if those officers didn't realize someone was being killed right next to them, that lack of awareness is legally irrelevant.
All that matters to make you an accomplice is being with the person who committed the crime. They knew or reasonably should have known the force was excessive, therefore the death that resulted is on them. That's how broad the laws defining who is an accomplice are.
Non-police have been convicted of murder for doing far less than those cops other than the one kneeling on the guy's neck did - and their convictions are considered appropriate and just by the courts.
On the post: Just As The Copyright Office Tries To Ignore The Problem Of Bad Takedowns, NBC & Disney Take Down NASA's Public Domain Space Launch
Re:
Nope.
All you need to get around the perjury charge in section 512 is to do this:
Say "Hey, go over the web and make me a list of what you think should be taken down" to someone.
Then when they give you the list, run it through a script that auto-generates takedown notices without actually reading the list yourself.
The result is the person issuing the takedowns lacks the wilfullness and knowledge required to trigger 512(f), while the person making the list didn't issue any takedowns so they didn't commit perjury either.
Next >>