405

The US Department of Justice has now authorized retaliation to criticism of law enforcement (www.justice.gov)

submitted 1 week ago by disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Protecting Law Enforcement Personnel. One of the Department of Justice's top priorities is protecting law enforcement at the federal, state, and local levels who protect us all. This includes aggressively investigating the all-too-common instances of violence against and obstruction of law enforcement, seeking the death penalty for those who perpetrate capital crimes against law enforcement, and backing and promoting the efforts of law enforcement when they are subjected to unfair criticism or attack.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 159 points 1 week ago

Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing, and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests. The U.S. Attorneys' Offices and other litigating components of the Department shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution, including for obstructing federal functions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and violations of other statutes, such as 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324, 1373.

This is how they're intending to respond to state and local authorities who, in compliance with their state law, refuse to assist ICE. This is setting the stage for federal vs state.

[-] SnotFlickerman 92 points 1 week ago

They never gave one fucking shit about "states rights."

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 70 points 1 week ago

Only states' rights to own slaves.

[-] dustyb0tt0mz@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

you're not wrong but i feel like we're dumbing it down to keep making it about race and slavery. this is just hierarchy. they want hierarchy because they're already the ones in control. they want to reinforce that control and they will use it against anyone, regardless of race.

this is about the owners vs. the people. we will need a lot of support to fight this monster.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 6 points 1 week ago

"States rights" is a well-abused phrase of the Lost Causers. In using it here, both @SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone and I are recognizing that there is a huge amount of overlap between the current crop of shitheads and apologists for the Confederacy.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Wasn't it pretty much always the case that the states couldn't prohibit federal immigration officers, its just that they gave absolutely zero help if they were resisting?

Edit: Oh, reading fail on my part " failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands". I get it now. Can that even be legal? What authority does ICE have over a state police officer?

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Zero authority. But it's a stress test. Can we get judges to go along? Juries? What can we get them to believe is a legal command? Can we get ICE into houses without warrants? Can we prosecute Mayors and Police officials for not providing data that is a request?

They're going to push as far as people let them push. This is why the Federalist Society has been trying to pack the courts with conservative judges for decades. Defense Attorneys are going to have to step up and stop plea dealing so much stuff. But that's a lot harder to do than to say because they're criminally under resourced and over worked. (Not metaphorically in some states) In a system where the default is a plea deal to get out of jail there's going to be a lot of convictions for things that aren't actually crimes. The entire reliance on plea deals was predicated on good faith prosecutions.

[-] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 week ago

You're making the mistake of thinking they plan on obeying existing laws.

[-] _cryptagion@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 week ago

That'll be interesting to watch. The president and his cronies seem to forget that the federal government isn't the only group with a US military available to them.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 11 points 1 week ago

It'll be interesting to see what happens when a [State] National Guard receives mutually exclusive commands from [State] Governor and Little t.

[-] Azal@pawb.social 5 points 1 week ago

God it's gotta be nice living in a state that isn't licking the boots.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

My money is on that they either blew through or are about to blow through the ICE budget and are going to attempt to force the local, county, and state police to do ICE jobs. These big stupid actions ICE is doing is both inefficient and expensive and while they probably have a budget to do big shit every couple of months they probably dont have the manpower or money to do it constantly. Trying to force lower level law enforcement to do it is just the type of corporate influenced stupidity Musk and Trump would come up with.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 127 points 1 week ago

Damn, those Jan 6 folks must be in a lot of trouble since quite a few directly attacked LEOs

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago

"Not like that!"

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 14 points 1 week ago

The Republican Way™

Rules for thee, not for me.

[-] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 week ago

That must be the limit. You shall only beat officers nearly to death with an American flag, any more than that and it's illegal. Seems reasonable.

[-] ProfessorProteus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

But don't you dare express your right to free speech by (correctly) identifying a cop as a bastard!

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 83 points 1 week ago

Trump is attacking prosecutors and FBI agents.

Is the DOJ going after him?

[-] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 27 points 1 week ago

The hypocrisy that goes into all their messaging is just wild. 1. Kill capital police you are a political prisoner. 2. Your property gets raided by the FBI while your not even present (because your own lawyers negotiated the date/time) and you fuel the narrative they were trying to assassinate you.

And not to mention all the judges and clerks and courthouse staff he has put at risk and still somehow gets this "tough on crime pro police" messaging in the media without even an asterisk.

[-] prole 9 points 1 week ago

The gall... It's like at some point in 2016, he realized he could literally say anything, and half of the voting population will eat it up, and rub people's faces in it.

[-] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

He straight up said he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and no one would do a thing. It's one of the few things he was right about

[-] SnotFlickerman 46 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

when they are subjected to unfair criticism or attack.

We don't like it when you point out that we mercilessly kill people for no reason and then get a pat on the back and paid time off!

This is the opposite of a police misconduct database.

Get ready to be jailed for saying stuff like All Cops Are Bastards.

Well, so are the judges and prosecutors if they allow this shit to fly.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Exactly the line that stood out to me as well. There is way too much liberty in that wording, especially following a point of support for the death penalty.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 34 points 1 week ago

This will be used by sheriffs widely.

[-] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 week ago

Both sides, amiright fellow citizens of the nation just north of the gulf of America?

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 10 points 1 week ago

While conservatives are obviously worse than liberals in just about every way, I don't think rejecting the "both sides" argument in such a general way is a legitimate argument either.

It takes two to tango, and the Democratic party obviously deserves some of the criticism for the current state we find ourselves in. Mainly in their passivity in response to the rise of fascism in the conservative party.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The whole point of 'both sides' is both sides doing the same kinds of things.

One party failing to stop a coup because they try (and fail) to work within the legal system and making poor choices is the opposite of the side that is blatantly breaking the system. It isn't even close to 'both sides'. What a terrible take.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

The whole point of 'both sides' is both sides doing the same kinds of things.

Yes, and in some areas this is a legitimate argument. Both parties are slaves to donors and the capital class, and have rarely disagreed with things like how we handle things at a geopolitical scale.

One party failing to stop a coup because they try (and fail) to work within the legal system and making poor choices is the opposite of the side that is blatantly breaking the system.

Right, but that's also ignoring the decades of thirdway politics that allowed the conservative party to position themselves to do a coup in the first place.

I'm not saying that both sides is a legitimate argument for every topic, but it also shouldn't be off-handedly rejected in every scenario either.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

It should be dismissed because it is a false equivalence tactic used to fool people like you into blaming both parties for the actions of one party.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Lol, I've repeatedly said it's not equivalent, and not a legitimate argument when utilized in generality. I've just noticed people like yourself are increasingly utilizing it to rebuff all criticism for the Democratic party.

Wanting to discuss nuance in an argument isn't a blatant acceptance of an argument. You're just trying to force a false dichotomy.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I am literally saying that 'both sides' is ALWAYS a false equivalence.

ALWAYS.

Both sides can have overlap in things they do, but that doesn't make blaming 'both sides' valid.

Being ineffective at stopping something isn't the same thing as enabling.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

am literally saying that 'both sides' is ALWAYS a false equivalence.

Then you are either misinformed or blatantly lying?

There are plenty of examples of both parties overwhelmingly agreeing on certain topics. An obvious one is the vote to go to war in Afghanistan, or the Patriot act......

Being ineffective at stopping something isn't the same thing as enabling.

You're claiming that conservatives and Democrats haven't ever agreed upon anything that might be reasonably criticized.......

Again, you're just thinking in absolutes.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Me:

Both sides can have overlap in things they do, but that doesn’t make blaming ‘both sides’ valid.

You:

You’re claiming that conservatives and Democrats haven’t ever agreed upon anything that might be reasonably criticized…

I'm going to go talk to a brick wall as that is more likely to be productive.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

Both sides can have overlap in things they do, but that doesn’t make blaming ‘both sides’ valid.

Lol, if two people agree to do something stupid to an equal degree I can't blame both people? Are you trying to be obtuse, or are you really this stupid?

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

I had a good chat with the wall, and the wall didn't put words into my mouth that directly contradicted the last thing that I said.

[-] prole 3 points 1 week ago

Yup, that's the only thing they have. It's kind of crazy how often I see it here. They can't handle being wrong about this, so they go for the straw man, but they're really bad at it.

[-] TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago

wall didn't put words into my mouth that directly contradicted the last thing that I said.

What you said was self contradictory....... Wouldn't surprise me if you actually attempted to literally talk to a wall, you both have rocks for brains.

Both sides can have overlap in things they do, but that doesn’t make blaming ‘both sides’ valid.

Your claim was based in cognitive dissonance.... If the thing that they overlap on is deserving of blame then blaming both sides is valid.

How exactly are both sides not responsible for blame for voting to go to war in Afghanistan? How are they both not to blame for passing the Patriot act? They both agreed in complete consensus on both of those acts of Congress....well almost, two Republicans voted against the war in Afghanistan.

Go kick rocks.

[-] earphone843@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

You can find some sort of overlap between any two things. Two things having a few things in common doesn't justify saying both things are the same.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] ieatpwns@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago

Fuck the police and who they fucking with

[-] RangerJosey@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago

We live in a fascist country.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] CentauriBeau@lemm.ee 14 points 1 week ago

No, he just made it legal (or unpunishable) to bribe elected officials and corporations, particularly by other countries:

Shifting Resources in the National Security Division. To free resources to address more pressing priorities, and end risks of further weaponization and abuses of prosecutorial discretion, the Foreign Influence Task Force shall be disbanded. Recourse to criminal charges under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and 18 U.S.C. § 951 shall be limited to instances of alleged conduct similar to more traditional espionage by foreign government actors. With respect to FARA and § 951, the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, including the FARA Unit, shall focus on civil enforcement, regulatory initiatives, and public guidance.

The National Security Division's Corporate Enforcement Unit is also disbanded. Personnel

assigned to the Unit shall return to their previous posts.

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 week ago

Something something free speech absolutist?

They never were of course but they did gave Anarchist who actually are a bad name.

[-] wjrii@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago

Transitional Organized Crime, Cartels, and Gangs.

Page 4. Either somebody lets the spell-check do auto-replace, or they are going hard on those dangerous hormone therapy peddlers.

Aww, who am I kidding? It's both!

[-] kikutwo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Fuck them and the newly fascist DOJ.

[-] Potatisen@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

obstruction of law enforcement, seeking the death penalty for those who perpetrate capital crimes against law enforcement

Wouldn't it be funny to see Elon and Snowden sitting together in Russia?

For very different reasons... One is a patriot, one is escaping consequences.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025

405 points (100.0% liked)

News

25286 readers

3448 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

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

WrenFeathers@lemmy.world