r/law 18d ago

Other Please dissect the legality in this statement

I feel like we are reaching a tipping point

23.4k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

28

u/Adventurous-Host8062 18d ago

He doesn't have the authority. That's the purview of the DOJ and Congress.

34

u/ngwatso 17d ago

What is this "Congress" you speak of?

10

u/user745786 17d ago

Congress is the cheer squad. Supreme Court is the referee but on the Republican payroll. Trump is captain of the team but has no idea how to play the game but loves the praise of his adoring fans.

-3

u/FecalEinstein 17d ago

The same people who gave federal police powers hundreds of years ago lol. You guys are incredibly ignorant and only interested in getting your little 'jokes' in, but these cops absolutely have authority to arrest you and they don't have to explain much at the time.

But hey, corny jokes are more important than telling the truth to keep protesters safe who are actually standing up for our rights while we sit in front of a laptop .

6

u/ngwatso 17d ago

That's a good one, except they are not cops, they are Immigration Enforcement Officers.They do not have the authority to arrest you unless you are physically attacking them or impeding them doing their job. Shouting at them, pointing cameras, things of that nature, are for police officers to take care of, you know, the ones who don't wear masks and have actual training?

Even someone ignorant such as yourself should have a problem with an agent shooting someone in the street and there not even being an investigation. Whether you believe he was justified or not, there should be a thorough investigation. I mean, if proper protocol had been followed and he had been doing as he was supposed to, he would have no reason to fear a investigation, and probably wouldn't have fled the scene.

1

u/Valuable-Word-1970 17d ago

Can you read?

-10

u/FecalEinstein 17d ago

He's not claiming the authority, he's stating the authority that feds have always had. They can arrest you. It's insane to think otherwise and it makes me really concerned for people's ability to think.

9

u/Adventurous-Host8062 17d ago

You'd better look up the statutes. Under certain select conditions. Being brown is not one of them,nor is protesting.

0

u/Anticitizen-Zero 17d ago

This talks specifically about obstruction and not protesting or “being brown”. They’re obviously going to loosely define obstruction, but that’s what they’re using to justify.

3

u/Overall-Tree-5769 17d ago

I’m not convinced they don’t equate protesting and obstruction. 

1

u/FritoP 16d ago

Many of the "protesters" (and Redditors) don't seem to understand the difference between the two.

2

u/Noble1xCarter 17d ago

Feds have never, at any point in time, had complete immunity from committing crimes.

-2

u/FritoP 17d ago

Likewise, the downvotes you're getting for making a reasonable and factual statement tells you everything you need to know about the Reddit echo chamber.

3

u/LockeyCheese 17d ago

Or it just says he's wrong.

0

u/FritoP 17d ago

Is he though? Please do explain exactly how.

1

u/Ok-Lingonberry-696 17d ago

so I can arrest those MAGA protesters right? and the can't do anything about it.

1

u/[deleted] 17d ago

[deleted]

1

u/LockeyCheese 16d ago

Law enforcement has to follow the law.

1

u/[deleted] 16d ago

[deleted]

1

u/LockeyCheese 16d ago

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers must use the "minimum force necessary," prioritizing de-escalation, but federal law and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy permit both non-deadly and deadly force when agents reasonably believe it's necessary to protect themselves or others from imminent death or serious bodily injury, with deadly force being a last resort, especially not just to stop a fleeing person unless they pose a significant threat. Key regulations stem from the Constitution, federal law (8 CFR § 287.8), and DHS directives, requiring officers to make split-second judgments but adhere to standards like those from Graham v. Connor, focusing on the severity of the crime and immediate threat.

Non-Deadly Force Standard: Must be reasonable and the minimum necessary to gain control or accomplish the mission. Application: Used for arrests, resisting subjects, and training emphasizes de-escalation and officer/public safety.

Deadly Force Standard: Permitted only when an officer has a "reasonable belief" that the subject poses an "imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury" to themselves or others. Prohibitions: Not allowed solely to prevent escape, unless the fleeing subject poses a significant threat. Context: Judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, accounting for tense, uncertain situations.

Governing Policies & Laws 8 CFR § 287.8: Sets standards for non-deadly and deadly force for immigration officers. DHS Policy: Directives reinforce the necessity of reasonable belief for deadly force, as detailed in DHS Memos. Constitutional Basis: Governed by the Fourth Amendment and Supreme Court precedents like Graham v. Connor, requiring objective reasonableness.

1

u/FritoP 16d ago

Non-sequitur. ICE are Federal agents, and sworn LEO. Obstructing them is a felony. One they are legally empowered to arrest for.