U.S. citizen told "you have no rights" during immigration arrest speaks out
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/u-citizen-told-no-rights-010600507.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world537
Comments23https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/u-citizen-told-no-rights-010600507.htmlOpen linkView original on lemmy.world
These officers need to go to jail forever.
Narrator: They won't.
Then something else needs to happen to them
promotion
Share the link please
it's literally the link at the top of this thread. I don't always read the article either, since a bunch of the paywall blockers stopped working for me but usually unattributed quotes are from the link at the top
Sorry to both of you I did not see that it was quoted in their comment. That's a big my bad on my part
The people who warned against this when the PATRIOT Act passed were called “conspiracy theorists” at the time.
But he’s not
whitea real American, so no issues there…./s
Does getting dragged out of your car trigger your “castle defense “ doctrine? Or what ever it is that FL calls it?
I don't live in Florida (I'm a West Coaster), but there are two legal doctrines used for defensive force by a citizen: 'Stand Your Ground" laws (which mainly preside in the South and Midwest), and the "Castle Doctine" (Largely applicable to all states).
The Castle Doctrine applies mainly to your home or property - If someone is breaking into your home/business, you are granted legal permission to stop them through force, usually with the requirement that you provide an opportunity for the intruder to retreat first before escalating. IIRC there is an ongoing debate on if vehicles are included as a "Castle".
The Stand Your Ground laws are usually based instead on wherever you have a legal right to be in - the street, a business, etc... and give you the right to engage in force against someone credibly threatening your life.
However, the obvious problem is that aspects of the Castle Doctrine (and the entirety of Stand Your Ground laws) are subjective in the "defender's" judgement on whether a situation justifies force to resolve situations. People have been killed over ludicrously petty disputes and the consequences of the law are applied very unequally, so you have this disconnect of people feeling like they have Carte Blanche to shoot whoever they disagree with, those who fear for their lives because they could be shot at essentially any time of day anywhere with no repercussions, and those who can't resolve their disputes using the laws because of discrimination.
I don't live in a state that has Stand Your Ground or a full Castle Doctrine, so I can't say for certain what things would be like in Florida, but I'm under the impression that they have both with minimal oversight.
Castle Doctrine Wikipedia Article
Stand Your Ground Wikipedia Article
Holy crap. I wasn’t expecting an ACTUAL answer… ya weirdo. :-)
Thank you. Solid response to me being an idiot asking a silly question.
You can’t ask good questions on Lemmy without getting someone to respond with a genuinely informative answer (if they see it, even days later)
We need to increase the weirdo pool a bit more though so the questions get seen.
I'm doing my part! XD
I’m glad we have new(er) willing participants :)
I'm gonna repost this comment every time I see this type of post in this community:
“Mildly infuriating” is when you drop your only measuring spoon behind the oven two minutes after your longer-armed roommate leaves for a week-long trip, or when your cat won’t stop yowling to go out while you’re on an important work video call so you excuse yourself for a moment to let him out and he just stands at the door, sniffs the air, then turns back inside to sleep on the couch, or when you have to special-order paint from abroad to cover up a ding on your car because the color has been discontinued for a decade, only to find out after application that it doesn’t match because 15 years of sun exposure caused your car’s paint to fade.
There is nothing “mildly infuriating” about late stage capitalism, environmental degradation, and oligarchy fuckery… That’s just plain infuriating.
Edit: I originally came up with these "actually mildly infuriating" examples on the fly the last time I had to post this, but I think they could be better. I'm taking suggestions of other examples for when I inevitably have to post this comment again!
Thank you
IT'S LIKE RAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN
ON YOUR WEDDING DAY!
That's not mildly infuriating either, it's ironic, duh!
(actually nothing listed in the lyrics is an example of irony and the song probably made us all a bit dumber as a result but damn if it isn't catchy af).
And that's why people fucking cheer when cops get shot now. You pigs brought this upon yourselves.
What the fuck does that even mean?
It means you don't have to be able to effectively communicate at a minimum of 3rd grade education to join ICE. You can be an illiterate, inbred, fascist nazi incapable of forming complete sentences and get that paper. It's the American Dream!
I have to imagine a transcription error unless that is clearly heard on the recording
Rights, huh? If the Western world hadn't codified human decency, they wouldn't even pretend to have it. 😑