In authoritarian regimes it isn’t uncommon for the state officers and soldiers to engage in casual theft along side their official duties. With the way our country is going, there is a non-zero chance this was an actual ICE officer just working his “side hustle”.
You are very lucky if they stop with casual theft.
Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the secret police in Stalin’s USSR was a serial rapist and murderer. He had at least hundreds women and children kidnapped off the street, both people who weren’t missed but also celebrities, and raped them and then murdered them if they wouldn’t pretend it was consensual. A pile of bones covered with lime was uncovered near his one-time residence 15 years ago, but contemporary testimonies say that his torture chamber of a basement had underground passages to other burial sites.
Once some people are above the law, nothing is off the table.
Yep.
Obviously this is a pretty extreme example but without the rule of law, government officials will engage in corruption, hold overs, and blackmail.
With ICE just seizing and deporting whoever they like, it provides white Americans with incredible power over others because they can just threaten to call ICE.
ICE was always lawless from what we know about them in reports, there were articles about rape cases even back under Biden.
Also Stalin told his daughter to never be alone with Beria because even he couldn’t ensure her safety. Honestly I’m convinced that Beria was on Stalin’s shit list and the only reason he wasn’t purged was because WW2 kicked off.
Stalin was the one thing keeping Beria alive though even after the war, after Stalin died, the first order of business for the Politburo was to kill him.
I’m not saying Stalin liked him, I’m saying he was useful enough that Stalin never got around to purging him.
Removed by mod
It’s technically not a crime if you label it civil forfeiture.
deleted by creator
American cops have been robbers for a long, long time under the guise of civil forfeiture.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
Those stolen assets don’t end up as personal property of the officer though.
They do. Way way too often.
That is “legal” theft, which can be fought in court, and isn’t what I’m referring to. A law enforcement officer committing theft not associated with their duties is what I’m talking about like this example reported just yesterday.
“Legal theft”. Careful not to choke on your words. It is a well known and well documented abuse of the legal system. A great many police departments, corrupt even more than usual, use it to fund departmental expenses, staff perks and bonuses.
Fighting street level injustice through inaccessible and notoriously corrupt courts is also a sad joke.
“Legal theft”. Careful not to choke on your words. It is a well known and well documented abuse of the legal system.
Abuse? Its codified in law. Its working as intended. I don’t agree with it, but its not extra-judicial. You’ll see I specifically put it quotes to communicate that, while it meets the letter of the law, it is far from actual justice.
Just because it is codified into law doesn’t make it not abusive in nature. That just means the law is attempting to justify abuse.
Almost as if something being a “law” is nothing more than those in power attempting to legitimize their oppression of the people under their authority.
Just because it is codified into law doesn’t make it not abusive in nature. That just means the law is attempting to justify abuse.
Are we really just having semantic arguments now?
“Abuse of the law” I interpret as equal to “breaking the law”. Civil Forfeiture doesn’t break the law it is written from. Is it unjust? Absolutely! Do I agree it should be abolished? Absolutely!
Almost as if something being a “law” is nothing more than those in power attempting to legitimize their oppression of the people under their authority.
Again, I’ve clearly separated the concepts of “lawful” from “justice”. They ARE NOT always equal. This is a case where they aren’t.
Are we done having arguments over grammar and semantics? You can keep going if you like, but I’m more interested in focusing on our world burning than arguing over something we both already agree should be abolished.
Sorry the point went over your head it seems.
It adheres to the letter of the law only when you ignore the 4th and 5th ammendments. But why bother? The constitution ain’t worth shit anyways.
Yeah i was just going to say, its not like theyre tracking these things, so isnt it more likely he just is an actual ICE officer?
As a non-American this is really one of the weirdest things about ICE. Why don’t they do their raids in uniform/with badge and face uncovered (perhaps apart from tactical headgear) like any other law enforcement agency? Even when arresting terrorists/mobsters you would expect the cops to be identifiable.
Why don’t they do their raids in uniform/with badge and face uncovered (perhaps apart from tactical headgear) like any other law enforcement agency?
As far as I know the plain clothes arrests and covered faced raids are new artifacts of the GOP’s trump administration. I think there may have been plain clothes investigators before for some undercover work, but never used in the way it is today.
There are two reasons, I think, they are doing it today.
-
Masks add anonymity and reduce accountability. These folks are deeply disliked and under the hoods and masks, yet they’re people with homes and families. They need to conceal their identity so their actions don’t follow them home.
-
The trump administration wants a law enforcement arm with broad authority to arrest and detain with federal powers. ICE and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) have broad sweeping powers in the most populated portions of our country.
-
Maybe everyone should become an ice agent…what would they do then if everyone was larping
This was basically the end state of East Germany right before the wall fell. Something like 1 in 6 people were either in the Stasi or were Stasi informants working alongside them. One wonders what the power dynamic might have mutated into once there were no more sheep because everyone was working for the wolves.
Maybe that’s the kind of loyalist utopia these (and those) chumps were dreaming of but I’d doubt that’d actually shake out how they expected it to.
Fascism is a means to an end. The end result of fascism is cronyism, where power is delegated based on fealty.
Each level of fascism is a concentric circle, with a new out group named at every iteration.
Right now, it’s LGBT, specifically trans people in addition to immigrants. Once all of the outgroup is gone, a new one is named.
It’s a good thing we don’t have the gubmint compiling lists of, say, neurodivergent folks, so everything’s all nice and ready when the time comes.
I doubt the dynamic would have changed much. They’d just start with the purity and loyalty tests and start devouring each other. The fascists always need a convenient enemy
They did do that
That is hardly comparable.
Eastern Germany did not have an oligarch class to feed and did not aspire to invade other countries to rob their resources.
Most of the people you mention were informal informants (190k vs. 90k regular employees by the lat 80s) and these mostly worked out of ideological conviction and didn’t receive relevant payments for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unofficial_collaborator
Obviously these informants did not know who else around them was an informant. Economically they were doing normal jobs and receiving normal pay like everyone else. This cannot be described in terms of “wolfs and sheep”. American cops, ICE and the like full well know who their colleagues are. They get paid, usually full time to exercise their jobs and they have a direct authority to abuse, like with civil forfeiture.
A Stasi informant couldn’t reveal himself to his neighbor and demand money from him. First of all his neighbor might as well be an informant and second of all the informant has no power except to make allegations, for which he would have to compromise himself and be targeted himself.
The GDR was authoritarian for ideological reasons, not to feed the greed of a select few. This is fundamentally different to Capitalism and its final form, Fascism.
It’s already been happening, it’s documented in this Afroman song Edit: 3:50 timestamp
Thank you for including the relevant news article.
After the guy left the lady was probably like “thank god that wasn’t an ice agent.”
You can tell because he was competent, patient and professional.
thepoliceproblem has led to thenotactualpoliceproblem
secondaryproblemsduetopolice
Everybody pretends to be an ICE agent to steal or commit violence, it is an utterly illegitimate mob of thugs loyal to a dictator.
The only thing that isn’t pretend about ICE is the bigotry and violence.
I see no meaningful difference between these people and “actual ICE agents”.
I’m gonna pretend to be an ice agent and go into a McDonald’s and order a McFlurry and pay for my it and say thank you and eat in the lobby and clean up my mess and leave and never mention I’m an ice agent.
The meaningful difference is the relief felt by this poor woman when she discovered she was just being robbed, not deported.
just being robbed, not
deported.*sent to the off-shore extra-judicial concentration camps
It’s actually really easy to cosplay as ICE too.
Face mask. Cheap jacket. Fake ass vest.
How do we know it wasn’t just a regular ice agent?
We literally can not
deleted by creator
This is FAKE NEWS but also if it was REAL it’s because the SHOP OWNERS are Criminals and NOT the Person who Stole Money while Impersonating an Officer!
Anyways it’s a GOOD THING Unidentified Ice Agents are KIDNAPPING CHILDREN!
- This is intentionally ambiguous
- We have no way to say this wasn’t ICE
Did you not read the article that was attached? Multiple outlets in Philadelphia reported this incident.
I didn’t see the link. This response was only to the text in the image.
And yet you were upvoted, and I was down.
Which is weird, in a community devoted to pointing out that the police are the problem. If you tell even the most bootlicky of bootlickers that criminals are using their favorite law enforcement officers as a smokescreen to do evil shit, many of them will turn.
Dear Americans,
You’re well within your right to shoot ICE agents on sight.
Oh no, Your Honor, you don’t understand, that guy on lemmy said I could do it
Do you not understand what the 2nd Amendment is for and are utterly ignorant to concepts such as “self defense”?
In the current climate, do you really think a judge will support your assertions of self defence?
If you shoot an ICE officer, I very much doubt you’d ever see a court room.
We’re a little past hoping judges do the right thing.
Okay? So people shouldn’t defend themselves against violence committed against them?
Do you always ask permission of your assailant on which methods you are allowed to use to defend yourself against them?
I also think the key thing you’re missing here is that you wouldn’t be the only one who is armed and ready to defend yourself and others around against it. You would be organized as a community, maybe through having a well regulated militia that exercises the right to bear arms in the event that it is necessary to the security of a free state
Gee why does that sound familiar?
You literally advocated shooting ICE agents on sight. That is not “defending” oneself.
It absolutely is. ICE is a “legal” terrorist organization that is committing crimes against marginalized individuals. They are to be treated as a threat, as their only role is to do harm against my community. It is absolutely well within the right of a community to defend themselves against organizations that only seek to do harm.
ICE gets the same treatment as Nazis.
No it’s not. Defense in a legal context is averting imminent physical harm. When you “sight” a bunch of ICE agents abducting someone, it’s just not going to meet that legal requirement.
You’re well within your right to shoot ICE agents on sight.
This is just plain false. Anyone following your advice is just going to get shot by a half dozen ICE goons.
Hey bud,
This doesn’t apply to people they don’t want it to apply to. It never has.
deleted by creator
The fact you literally cannot comprehend resistance without shooting someone is almost as breathtaking as your ignorance of power structures
The fact you literally cannot comprehend that any form of resistance will be met with violence of state oppression, disguised as “enforcing law and order”, and that people should be prepared to defend themselves when they attempt to challenge the status quo is as breathtaking as your own ignorance of power structures.
The state will enact violence upon people regardless. If you’re going to be unlawfully deported to a country that has basically offered to enslave and torture the people sent there by the USA - then why not defend yourself? The violence will happen no matter how you behave. More violence will happen to other people if you do not. If a critical number of people choose to defend themselves, the federal government will be unable to continue inflicting violence.
Hey bud.
That’s all the more reason for people to exercise their right in the face of those trying to take it away from them.
It doesn’t matter what they say. We shouldn’t respect their authority and should be preparing to challenge it.
Cycle back a bit bud. Lets roll to the start:
point one : lets shoot ice under 2FA Me: 2FA defense doesn’t apply to people they don’t want it to apply to
You can warhgarrghhg after the fact all you like, but the fact is the way the US is going you should not be thinking your “constitutional rights” are going to protect you. Throughout US history under saner governments they’ve violated them as they see fit for demographics of their choosing.
The current administration is not sane.
IF your response to having this pointed out to you is to claim that the person pointing it out is boot gobbling and therefore *never *going to resist then you probably need to sit back a bit and think about your comprehension levels
The 2nd Amendment isn’t about legality, as much as a small enumeration of our natural rights. James Madison was against including a Bill of Rights because he felt that an actual list of rights was far too numerous, and had to be talked round to including a portion of the most important rights to be written down.
It’s written down for us, the people, the citizens. It’s to remind us that we have inalienable rights that cannot be taken from us by a tyrannical government, big or small. That we have these rights inherent to our very being.
From the Declaration of Independence:
" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "
(Broke it up for readability)
My point with this is that the only defense that matters at this section of time is social defense. If I end up on the jury for someone who shot someone who was masked up as ICE. In no way would I ever consider them guilty, regardless of the events. It is socially acceptable in my eyes to kill an individual in a gestapo like organization. That’s just self defense/defense of a third party, as they represent an actual threat, even if an individual’s current actions aren’t threatening.
Your entire screed still relies on there being rules of social order
Fascism 101: they don’t play by these. Think such a thing in america is preposterous? Then you are not paying attention because due process is already being fucked harder than caligula’s favourite watermelon.
I don’t see any well-regulated militias around here…
Yea. That’s kinda the entire problem that I’m attempting to highlight. See my other comment where I literally quote the amendment word for word
Only if you want to spend the rest of your life dead or in prison.
It’s a lovely thought, but ICE has the entire weight of the government behind them.
I guess ICE wins then. Yayyyyy.
deleted by creator
Would you consider ICE losing being -1 officers and you in prison or dead? Like I said, I don’t disagree with the sentiment, I’m just being realistic.
Let me put it this way: If people start killing ICE officers, they will be rolling up with every resource they have to kidnap whoever they are looking for.
Is that a better situation?
Killing officers is not the end, it’s the beginning.
The more officers they have to send to a kidnapping, the fewer kidnappings they can perform.
Then the people need to organize and be ready to fight back and defend themselves against state oppression. We know it is going to happen if we stand up for ourselves, so we might as well be prepared instead of letting it deter us from doing what is right.
You act like they aren’t already rolling in and kidnapping whoever they desire. So the threat of them doing it “harder” is moot.
I mentioned people organizing and fighting back in my earlier comment. I absolutely support it. But the main point is the organization.
And I really don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that, while sure they are doing whatever the fuck they want now, they have far more gross tools they can use. I think what we’re seeing right now is Trump trying to normalize the military protecting ICE.
I’m more inclined to think that unidentified ICE officers kidnapping random folk without any warrant or due process is the beginning, citizens defending themselves from the gestapo is the only appropriate response. To be realistic, they’re already rolling up with every resource they have to kidnap whoever they are looking for, it’s already reached that point. Who do you think would back down first? Who do you think should back down first?
spend the rest of your life dead
I feel like this wording could have been better
It’s just a stupid joke, like waking up dead.
No, the wording is perfect. Similar to when you wake up dead.
I was under the impression that US rules about trespassing left the owner with a lot of rights, even to use weapons to protect their property. Doesn’t this apply when ICE raids homes without warnings or warrants?
Americans love to preach about their rules. Especially about how uniquely exceptional the rules are. Turns out it’s all bullshit. They’re just another tinpot dictatorship ruling over a barbaric shithole.
Yes but no, you have the right to defend your home but not against an officer of the law carrying out a warrant. So if a plain clothes officer, with a drawn fire arm, carrys out a no knock warrent, and the homeowner tries to shoot them. That’s attempting to kill an officer of the law. It doesn’t matter if the appearance of a plain clothes no knock warrent is identical to a home invasion, and the homeowner defends themselves, the ICE agents are just going to kill the homeowner and the ICE agents will have protection of the law.
Honest question: what warrant are they operating under? These guys won’t even produce ID when asked so I doubt they’ve got paperwork
You are forgetting they are not using warrants. A court would find you not guilty if they have no warrant and you defend yourself according to your laws.
I certainly wouldn’t find anybody shooting an ICE “agent” as guilty if I was on the Jury, regardless of what a judge might say. Jury Nullification is an important right that every U.S. Citizen should know about, but never talk about inside a court house.
I refuse to put away people defending their community from a gestapo like force, regardless of the events surrounding said gestapo’s death.
This isn’t really true. People have gotten off on shooting at officers because they didn’t know they were officers. It’s a huge risk, because they’ll also likely just shoot you, but the law doesn’t actually require people to have telepathic knowledge of the association of a presumed home invader.
It’s still very much a matter of privilege to afford a good enough attorney to get you off. Black people tend to get shot while sleeping and convicted postmortem.
Apparently not, either die trying or live in servitude as all hopes of resistance gets further stripped away. A lot of people in here seem to choose the latter, it’s how the bad guys win every time.
Sadly, no. I mean, MAYBE, with the right administration you could get away with killing an officer if they are breaking the law and endangering your life. But it’s really up to the courts, and courts are usually not okay with killing their officers. Even when it is justified or self defense. The state will not go down without a fight.
I don’t think there is any realistic resistance without an organized army of civilian soldiers. The 2nd amendment and ‘militias’ and all that.
Yea. The key part of the 2nd amendment is the “organized militia” part that has conveniently been left out of main stream discussions.
Civilians need to start organizing or we are all royally fucked.
Actually an organized militia isn’t needed. As the bill of rights is just a small enumeration of our natural rights, and does not include all of them. They are solely there to remind the populace what our rights are even in the face of a tyrannical government. Funny enough your arguments now are why James Madison didn’t want a bill of rights included as he felt that Natural Rights were too numerous to list, and people would think themselves limited to only the enumerated powers or confuse them into thinking the government granted them those rights. When, in fact, those rights are inherent to our very being.
Some Relevant reading:
" When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. "
-The Declaration of Independence.
So important they wrote it down, and signed it. (Broke it up for readability)
If ICE comes for you, there’s an over 50% chance that’s gonna happen either way. May as well even the field a bit.
Also wondering what happens if there next goon squad is all ventilated.
“Oh yeah, I saw an attempted kidnapping and then somebody shot the kidnappers. Victim and the shooter ran away. Guy was wearing a hoodie. No idea who they were”
He low key helped show why we want law officers to have a branded uniform, name tag and provide ID.
Low key?
And wearing a mask to hide your identity while performing your job function is pretty sus.
Given the photos, this guy didn’t even use a mask! He could have gone full bear and been even more protected from discovery.
I mean, sure that would be a nice fringe benefit of police reform.
But this was only possible because of the terror police inspire by their mere presence. Nobody is willing to fight back against this guy for fear he’s an actual officer. Nobody has any faith in the Real Police (assuming this guy wasn’t actually a cop who decided to moonlight as a robber) finding and stopping this guy.
It isn’t as though the crook couldn’t have slapped a “Hi I’m Jim_” name tag on his chest and done the exact same thing. You have to believe knowing the officer’s identify would result in some consequence to the owner of the gear in order to see that as a material benefit.
not much stolen valor in this, I suppose.
Many commenters totally predicted this sort of thing.
Yeah anyone now with a security/police/ice/military uniform is not acting with the constitution and is labeled a threat. They are not in charge of public safety anymore
So the solution to the forced deportation is to dress everybody in ICE “uniforms” and deport the deporter?
All you fucking idiots are OK with this if you didn’t immeditantly go out and flag every grandma that’s 5 over.
