this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
385 points (99.2% liked)

News

30741 readers
2830 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago

Step 1: Get binoculars

Step 2: Attach binoculars to Camera

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Profit?

[–] ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com 99 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

The DHS views the situation differently. In a statement to NBC, a department spokesperson said that “Garcia assaulted and verbally harassed a federal agent and that he was subdued and arrested for the alleged assault”.

They say this every time, whether or not there is footage obviously proving otherwise.

Apart from being so insulting and pathetic that this is the government's generic response to unconstitutional arrests (though he is suing under a tort law due presumptively due to qualified immunity), it's also outright defamatory to falsely claim that someone has committed a crime and assaulted ICE.

The story doesn't provide evidence either way, but if this just is their typical Baghdad Bob propaganda, I hope the victims of ICE start to sue for defamation as well - drain the new bill's obscene funding with a wave of court-ordered compensation to ICE's victims.

[–] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 3 points 7 hours ago

I hope the victims of ICE start to sue for defamation as well - drain the new bill's obscene funding with a wave of court-ordered compensation to ICE's victims.

Oh man, seeing how all of this bill is basically "trickling up" wealth again , it'd be kinda hilarious to use strategic ICE suing to drain it back down to the people again.

Lawyers would see it as blood in the water after one or two successful cases, especially after that huge budget increase. Gold rush on ICE lol!

[–] octopus_ink@slrpnk.net 36 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (4 children)

Is verbal harassment of police and such even a thing? What if he did shout 'fucking pigs' or whatever while he was videoing? To me that would change nothing - but would it?

provide evidence either way, but if this just is their typical Baghdad Bob propaganda, I

[–] Taldan@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago

These people are arguing in the court of public opinion. The guy could be 100% in the clear legally and it wouldn't matter if public opinion is against him. The governlent has been doing tons of unconstitutional/illegal things, but only reversed the ones with widespread negative public sentiment

[–] JTskulk@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Verbal harassment isn't a thing. You can legally tell a cop to fuck off while flipping them off. The only kind of speech that isn't allowed is "fighting words" or calls to violence.

They say he was arrested for the "assault," but yep, they intentionally phrased it to conflate "verbal harassment" with actual (if true) criminal conduct. It's a meaningless phrase.

If anything, they put it there because to the right wing base, it justifies police violence or could support disorderly conduct, or one of the other catch-all pretextual "crimes" used when police want to arrest someone for no real reason.

[–] Zahille7@lemmy.world 6 points 23 hours ago

That has stopped literally no one from trying to make arrests before.

[–] ElJefe@lemmy.ca 57 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 1 day ago

It was so good to hear that in the LA protests

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In before "YoU CaN'T SuE ThE GoVeRnMeNt" /s

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Applicability of the federal torts act to sovereign immunity is always a good point of discussion.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

Something else everyone should know about QI

http://web.archive.org/web/20230520080201/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

It has literally no legal basis and the 1982 SCOTUS was unknowingly given the wrong text of the law as passed by Congress.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 3 points 10 hours ago

Holy shit, I missed that. That's a tectonic change if the Supreme Court can actually be bothered to recognize it.

[–] roguetrick@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

In this case they're trying to sue the government itself which has sovereign immunity, not qualified. Congress passed a law that allowed some channels past that sovereign immunity but the courts have been very conservative as to how it's interpreted. That's the federal torts claims act. One of the key things it doesn't cover is intentional torts. So if someone though negligence hit you in the mouth and knocked the teeth out, you can sue. If, by contrast, they did it through malice and battery you cannot but you can break through their personal qualified immunity if you could prove malice. Good luck

Aiming a little low IMO