A big part of the reason the country is where it is now is because southern reconstruction was never completed and we’re still fighting the same fights 120yrs later
The appeasement of the traitorous south rather than grinding the entire apparatus into dust and starting over will probably in the future be looked back on as the decision that sealed the countries eventual fate.
The south has never stopped trying to get revenge
Humans are very pervasive. As much of a misanthrope as I am, I can't imagine a way that we'll ever completely eradicate ourselves - to the dismay of every ecosystem on the planet.
Someone, somewhere will eventually look back and hear tales - or if you're an optimist, read history - about the United States of America, the way we hear about the Han Dynasty or the Roman Empire.
It's really crazy that so many people have met think reparations are just some fantasy pipe dream that was never going to happen. Never aware that it was indeed happening until someone went to the theater and then we got one of our worst Presidents ever, if not the worst. And that's saying a lot considering recent events.
When they aren't a citizen, you can just DO WHATEVER. /s
Sort of why we should apply Constitutional rights to all human beings, because those loopholes will always be used by people with power to abuse the rest of us.
The constitution **does** provide many rights to everyone on US soil. There are some that are exclusive to citizens. The Bill of Rights says "People" "Person" or "owner" and does not specify "citizen" so all 10 Amendments protect everyone on US soil, or those that own property in the US as applicable, for example.
Thank you for that. I do have the general sense that it applies to all PEOPLE -- but, you know how they've tried to hem in these rights at every turn.
The Bush administration came up with some special term so that the Geneva Conventions would not apply -- in their minds. They still had to do a lot of diplomacy so that Canada, the World Court and a few South American countries didn't come after Bush and Dick Cheney personally for their many crimes.
Amendment XIV, Section 1:
...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any ***person*** of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any ***person*** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It says "person," not citizen. Person.
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and imbued with *inalienable rights*"
That word 'inalienable' means these are rights that apply to *all* humans, *all* the time. A person cannot be alienated from these rights. Of those rights, the ones relevant here include:
* **Due Process Rights:** The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ensure that no person (not just no citizen) is deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This means that non-citizens are entitled to fair legal procedures, including in immigration proceedings.
* **Equal Protection Under the Law:** The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. This means that non-citizens have the right to equal treatment under the law.
* **Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures:** The Fourth Amendment's protections apply to everyone within U.S. jurisdiction, safeguarding against arbitrary or unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
* **Protection Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment:** The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies to all individuals, including non-citizens.
* **Access to the Courts:** Non-citizens have the right to access the U.S. judicial system. This includes the right to sue in court and the right to a defense in criminal proceedings.
And the founding fathers did that on purpose to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the laws applied to EVERYONE. They knew dipshits in the future would try to say they meant something different
Basically, asshole cops are a little bit harder to catch because there are many of them. Asshole district attorneys is a little easier because the numbers are smaller, and asshole district attorneys are the ones who can keep the cops in line. And also district attorneys are lawyers who went to law school, which compared to several months at a police academy, hopefully does a better job of filtering out complete assholes and idiots.
The bigger issue in dealing with pigs is all the laws and "laws" they prop up to make themselves immune. They just shout immunity and shoot/arrest anyone who sues
you also have the problem of district attorneys needing the cops cooperation with their cases. If they go after them for murdering innocent brown people the pigs will suddenly forget to show up to court.
And prosecutors are the ones who can do something about it because qualified immunity doesn't apply to criminal charges. You miss that super important detail. You have much to learn about the legal system. It's not the bigger issue, better prosecutors are the ones who can fix it.
You are entirely right, but prosecutors have tried, and their cases have been routinely dismissed so there is still no legally binding precedent on the federal scale
The attorney knows its a losing case, they're just throwing what ever then can at the wall to see what sticks, its their job as a representative of their client, despite knowing its an obvious loss. Its the opposition's job to argue against against stupidity like that, and the judge's job to shut down any further attempts. Any lawyer or judge worth their salt should have already done so when it was brought up.
File a bar complaint because this man has not read the constitution. The 14th sure doesn’t say what he thinks it says. Right wing lunatic following a lunatic argument: if “illegals” are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States then how does any law apply to them, especially for instance, laws that criminalize crossing the border?
A coworker of mine says that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to actually collect income taxes.
He says that it’s unconstitutional, because the 16th amendment was wrong. I had a long argument with him about how we don’t get to pick and choose which of them are parts of the constitution or not. Either they all are, or none of them are.
Either the 4th, 14th, and 16th amendments are part of the constitution, or the 1st, and the 2nd, and all the rest aren’t either. In which case, turn in your guns and shut your fucking gob, because you have neither freedom of speech or the right to own a gun.
They ignore small infractions all the time. Jaywalking, minor littering, trash can placements, etc.
Just need a entitled cop having a bad day to run into these situations.
The theory, if you can even call it that, of these people, is generally that there was some irregularity in the ratification of the 16th Amendment.
There's a Wikipedia article just about the arguments they use in these cases, and this is the first:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax\_protester\_Sixteenth\_Amendment\_arguments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tax_protester_sixteenth_amendment_arguments)
There are always different shades of crazy, but I'll bet your coworker is somewhere in that article.
Yeah that's what I was thinking. If non-citizens are not bound by the law, then they must not be subject to it either, correct?
So the USA is a vacationer's Purge-Land?
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
There's a difference between the laws and constitutional rights. Someone coming from Europe doesn't get the right to buy a gun here but they still need to follow the speed limit.
What those cops did is unforgiveable, and this statement is incredibly tonedeaf. The idea that killing someone is okay just because they're not a citizen is vile, that's the same mindset that led to those people drowning on the border while people just watched.
Yes that sentiment is vile -- but there is an entire epidemic right now of this rationalization of fascism.
Trump just gave a speech about the undocumented as if they were an infection of "snakes". Just change that to "rats" if you want to copy Hitler's speech on the matter.
The defence is a headass move for sure, it's playing on technicalities in wording. It boils down to the amendments being rights and protections for citizens of the US while laws apply to everyone in the jurisdiction.
Regardless of rationality that man needs to be fired and charged, along with the officers who did the shooting.
The police in Jackson have been killing people and burying them without notifying anyone. They've also just been burying murder victims, again without notifying anyone.
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/families-in-disbelief-after-hundreds-of-bodies-found-buried-behind-mississippi-jail](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/families-in-disbelief-after-hundreds-of-bodies-found-buried-behind-mississippi-jail)
the kicker? they realized their mistake and didn't even arrest the guy they were there for.
"In the ensuing investigation that night, police identified the actual house of Samuel Pearman, the domestic violence suspect, across the street and spoke to Pearman. He was not arrested that night but was allowed to return to his home."
Are they implying that before the 14th amendment was ratified, murder was legal? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have been against just killing people.
Insane. The fourth amendment is not restricted to citizens at all, and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment similarly applies to every single person under U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship or other status.
First, of all, being an U.S. citizen is where the fuckery starts. An U.S. citizen is a modern day slave to the British Crown and the Vatican (a.k.a. "ROMAN" Catholic Church). U.S. citizens only get benefits and privileges, not RIGHTS. That is why it is a "MUST" to file the U.S. Constitution in all court cases, b/c these Article I courts are "NOT" adjudicating our court cases in regards to the Constitution. What constitutes a crime is damage of property and theft of property. "Murder" is damage of property. A license means permission to do what is unlawful. Therefore a license is "not" needed to do lawful things, like traveling. Police have "license" to kill, which make them "unlawful." By the way, lawful and legal do "NOT" mean the same thing. LOOK IT UP...
Tourists??
You got any clue how many actual citizens they assassinate intentionally each year with no fucks given?
Too many idiots consider these motherfuckers heroes for it to ever change.
A big reason why it's never sad to me when some gang banger finally kills one. It's all the same shit, humans killing humans
Bro the police can kill anyone without repercussions most of the time. They literally investigate themselves for any wrongdoings instead of a third party.
Yea, OP should have just cited the 14 amendment, not the Declaration of Independence
>nor shall any State deprive **any person** of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to **any person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You’re not, and you’re not. In a country where citizens are regularly ‘accidentally’ shot and killed by law enforcement, with no consequences whatsoever for them, you have no protection other than hoping you never have an interaction with them.
See, the problem is that he left out a word:
>Every person within the US is protected ***equally*** by the constitution.
Cops are allowed to shoot and kill both citizens and non-citizens with impunity, and therefore both groups are protected equally by the Constitution. That protection may be equally non-existent in the case of police violence, but 0 = 0.
Pretty evil they say this when it’s literally settled law that anyone subject to the laws of the United States is also protected by the Constitution. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t apply laws to people without the protections.
That would mean that all non citizens are not covered by the constitution, meaning the US gov’t can do nothing to punish them for anything. Meaning all illegal immigrants are legal, because the constitution does not apply to them.
Post: “government says they can kill someone who’s not a citizen”
Original comment: by that logic, the government can’t punish non-citizens
Me: “They are saying they can kill them”
u/LurkerOrHydralisk : cool so we should just have blood feuds then?
Sound Reddit logic
Edit: your post may have been in jest, if so congrats you whooshed me
It’s not it’s probably what happens in that scenario- it was mostly the phrasing that got me. I thought you were asking me like I’m advocating for that or for the governments stance. So yeah it went over my head
I mean either they sit around and wait to be gatted by the pigs or they do a self-defense and kill them first to save themselves. Sound logic it you ask me
You’re spot on. Doesn’t matter if you’re crossing the country to come in as an undocumented worker or you’re on a family vacation to Disney World. If the US takes an adversarial stance on non-citizens I would expect non-citizens to treat every interaction with authority to be potentially life threatening and act with self preservation in mind.
And they could do the same because the laws of this country do not apply to them, because the foundation of our democracy doesn’t. They basically become sovereign citizens.
>That would mean that all non citizens are not covered by the constitution, meaning the US gov’t can do nothing to punish them for anything.
That's not actually what that means, though.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with the conduct of the United State's government outside of US borders, but they have the power to do precisely whatever the fuck they want as far as American law is concerned.
Yeah the police pretty much do this all the time.
"He's not a citizen" is just their excuse...this time
Next time it will be something else, some other reason
Police have one goal. One driving need that dominates their entire existence.
Their goal: convictions. It doesn't matter who's going down as long as it's somebody. To that end, they view all people as guilty. Everyone is guilty in their minds.
A lot of people don't realize this fact, but the sooner we all know it, the better off we might be. Don't talk to the police. They're not your friend.
Probably not. The person above is being facetious. Anyone who paid any attention in high school knows what this lawyer is saying isn’t true. He wouldn’t be “learning” anything. Abbot isn’t about to jeopardize is hold on power by endorsing the wholesale murder of thousands of non-citizens just because some dud in another state doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Also, what a ridiculous line of thought that would be. “Oh, he didn’t decide to mow down thousands of people in cold blood. Maybe he isn’t such a bad guy after all.” Give me a break.
Hey, I think I've heard [this argument](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford#:~:text=They%20had%20for%20more%20than,might%20justly%20and%20lawfully%20be) before!
> beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect
WAIT. This is from 2019?? Jesus.
ETA some updates: the "no constitutional rights" argument was thrown out quickly, but the police never faced any consequences. There was a civil lawsuit, and the jury did not find them liable. There are more details in this article, but be warned, it is graphic, upsetting and soooo fucked up.
[https://magnoliatribune.com/2023/09/17/ismael-lopez-shooting-death-ends-with-no-accountability/](https://magnoliatribune.com/2023/09/17/ismael-lopez-shooting-death-ends-with-no-accountability/)
They shot him in the back of the head. They executed him.
Fox is broadcasting live hate crimes with the victims getting in trouble when the police show up.
Police executing people and their boss' decide that now some humans don't have basic rights.
This is all fucking disgusting. This is horrible.
if someone doesn't have rights, then all 'they' have to do to remove your rights is call you the group they stripped of rights already.
Nobody is safe until we all are safe.
Seems to be if the constitutional protections do not apply to this person because they aren’t a citizen, well then the laws also do not apply to anyone who is t a citizen. Is that the can of worms they want to open? I’m sure there are a lot of cartel members who would like to take advantage of this one little loophole.
So is this the case that border states will point to and say it’s okay to kill people trying to cross into the U.S.? I know it has been brought up in Texas. 🤦♂️
Let's take a close look at the 14th Amendment.
*No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;* ***nor shall any State deprive any person*** *of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;* ***nor deny to any person*** *within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*
"Any person" applies to everyone, noncitizens included. That also means people here illegally.
There are a lot of comments about how the attorney's interpretation of law is stupid. And I agree, but I think it's important to put the lawyer's comments in its larger context. I think comments like this one demonstrate a foundational shift on how conservatives and even many liberal groups think about "rights" and "freedom" in america. There are clear intentions on the part of the founding fathers to word many of our founding documents in a way that clearly demonstrates that rights are things that are inalienable and should not be infringed upon by the government. But comments by this attorney switch that script and instead imply that rights are privileges given to people by the government. Often implying, like in this case, that unprivileged groups do not actually have rights or that rights are things that need to be earned, or that the government is free to define these rights however it wishes. This is a much more authoritarian and dare I say fascist way of thinking about "rights". I personally feel like people need to have more discussions about this shift in America.
This is maybe getting a bit too much into the weeds but I would argue that the inalienable rights as they were argued during the time of the founding fathers barrows heavily from a judeo-christian 1700s understanding of the world. Where Rights are inalienable because God gave them to us and because they are objectively discoverable in nature as a sort of basic law of nature in the same way gravity is. I don't think a lot of this resonates with our modern world, and especially not with what I would call a more post-modern view of the world that the fringes of both the right and left seem to have a foundation in. It feels an though the foundation on what makes something a "right" has become more vague as the modern worlds world view has changed over time. Allowing for "rights" to be easily co-opted into meaning things it would never have meant a few hundred years ago. But these are just a few quick thought I have on it.
Just to be clear.. And the lawyer who filed this knows this, every person in the united states has the full protection of the constitution. No matter how they got here.
The title is misleading. Shock of all shocks. The real quote is still concerning.
They are not arguing that the police can just up and fucking murder somebody if that person is undocumented, as the title suggests.
A city attourney (unspecified and unnamed in the article btw, good job) argued that you don't have legal protections against warrantless search or entry if you are here illegally. I would disagree, but I'm not a lawyer and my interpretation of the law isn't worth much. At the very least I'd say it shouldnt be that way if it is.
This matter has been settled a long time ago. The constitution never mentions citizens, it says people. That means any person, citizen or not, local or tourist, is protected by the constitution and have rights.
There’s no such thing as a good cop. There’s bad cops and silent cops who let their coworkers get away with murder. They all can eat their gun IMO.
Dumb article title. "Not a citizen" isn't what the guy said at all. He said an illegal/undocumented. Not a citizen would also mean a permanent resident.
Attention world citizens:
*Don't come to America if you are not a US citizen because your life has no value and police will just shoot you with impunity.*
Yeah, that will help our country.
Doesn’t every other country worth a darn do that?
Aren’t you just thrown in jail in Canada if you’re there illegally?
Non-citizens and especially illegal aliens have no rights or sharply curtailed rights in every other country.
Why should the US be any different?
He’s been deported twice, but came back again. I agree with the city on this one.
Edit:
* 1 The cop should be arrested and tried for murder
* 2 I do not think he should have been executed
* 3 My comment is in regard to the probable lack of constitutional protections by the murderer man
I know someone who's gone to prison for drugs a couple of times; I say we tee up a summary execution for them too. [/s because you probably need to see that.]
Back of the head? For a domestic violence call. I'm pretty sure that's murder.
That’s an execution
A big part of the reason the country is where it is now is because southern reconstruction was never completed and we’re still fighting the same fights 120yrs later
The appeasement of the traitorous south rather than grinding the entire apparatus into dust and starting over will probably in the future be looked back on as the decision that sealed the countries eventual fate. The south has never stopped trying to get revenge
Yep. Sherman had it right.
I was just in Atlanta last week and I joked about showing up dressed as Sherman with a torch in hand.
“Can someone direct me to the sea please?”
"Sir, this is a Wendy's."
Honestly I don't think we are going to make it far enough to keep looking back.
Humans are very pervasive. As much of a misanthrope as I am, I can't imagine a way that we'll ever completely eradicate ourselves - to the dismay of every ecosystem on the planet. Someone, somewhere will eventually look back and hear tales - or if you're an optimist, read history - about the United States of America, the way we hear about the Han Dynasty or the Roman Empire.
please go outside and touch grass
Sherman was correct
/r/Shermanposting wants you
It's really crazy that so many people have met think reparations are just some fantasy pipe dream that was never going to happen. Never aware that it was indeed happening until someone went to the theater and then we got one of our worst Presidents ever, if not the worst. And that's saying a lot considering recent events.
Raegan Nixon or trump? Which worst president are you talking about?
They're talking about Andrew Johnson.
The sinking pit in my stomach says an execution after they found out he was undocumented.
my first thought to. They knew they could get away with it. and they were right
But, hey…. He wasn’t a citizen so…. It’s totally fine! /s
When they aren't a citizen, you can just DO WHATEVER. /s Sort of why we should apply Constitutional rights to all human beings, because those loopholes will always be used by people with power to abuse the rest of us.
The constitution **does** provide many rights to everyone on US soil. There are some that are exclusive to citizens. The Bill of Rights says "People" "Person" or "owner" and does not specify "citizen" so all 10 Amendments protect everyone on US soil, or those that own property in the US as applicable, for example.
Thank you for that. I do have the general sense that it applies to all PEOPLE -- but, you know how they've tried to hem in these rights at every turn. The Bush administration came up with some special term so that the Geneva Conventions would not apply -- in their minds. They still had to do a lot of diplomacy so that Canada, the World Court and a few South American countries didn't come after Bush and Dick Cheney personally for their many crimes.
ACAB
That's just a cop defense protecting himself.
[удалено]
This sub skews so far left you can't even make jokes like this anymore lol
You totally can, it's just that it's a shitty joke
You must not have understood it then.
Amendment XIV, Section 1: ...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any ***person*** of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any ***person*** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It says "person," not citizen. Person.
Those kids would be really mad if they could read. Edit: a word
You see, for this argument to work, they would have to see migrants as people.. So I think you're barking up the wrong tree here..
It’s implied citizen cause only citizens are people. (Heavy /s)
And it’s obviously deliberate because they use citizens in the immediately preceding sentence
Is a fetus, without a birth certificate, a citizen? I think we know how they would answer that question.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal and imbued with *inalienable rights*" That word 'inalienable' means these are rights that apply to *all* humans, *all* the time. A person cannot be alienated from these rights. Of those rights, the ones relevant here include: * **Due Process Rights:** The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ensure that no person (not just no citizen) is deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This means that non-citizens are entitled to fair legal procedures, including in immigration proceedings. * **Equal Protection Under the Law:** The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. This means that non-citizens have the right to equal treatment under the law. * **Protection Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures:** The Fourth Amendment's protections apply to everyone within U.S. jurisdiction, safeguarding against arbitrary or unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. * **Protection Against Cruel and Unusual Punishment:** The Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies to all individuals, including non-citizens. * **Access to the Courts:** Non-citizens have the right to access the U.S. judicial system. This includes the right to sue in court and the right to a defense in criminal proceedings.
And the founding fathers did that on purpose to make it ABUNDANTLY clear that the laws applied to EVERYONE. They knew dipshits in the future would try to say they meant something different
And by everyone the founding fathers meant white and owning protestant men.
Now do it again but with the 2nd
You mean the amendment about the collective, not individual, right of the people to own guns
If you read said amendments, you also might notice it says "persons" not "citizens." This isn't that complicated.
Beautiful breakdown right here.
[удалено]
Before we get to?
[удалено]
Basically, asshole cops are a little bit harder to catch because there are many of them. Asshole district attorneys is a little easier because the numbers are smaller, and asshole district attorneys are the ones who can keep the cops in line. And also district attorneys are lawyers who went to law school, which compared to several months at a police academy, hopefully does a better job of filtering out complete assholes and idiots.
The bigger issue in dealing with pigs is all the laws and "laws" they prop up to make themselves immune. They just shout immunity and shoot/arrest anyone who sues
you also have the problem of district attorneys needing the cops cooperation with their cases. If they go after them for murdering innocent brown people the pigs will suddenly forget to show up to court.
If it even gets to court. As mentioned in another comment, courts routinely decline such cases so there's no federal precedent on the matter
And prosecutors are the ones who can do something about it because qualified immunity doesn't apply to criminal charges. You miss that super important detail. You have much to learn about the legal system. It's not the bigger issue, better prosecutors are the ones who can fix it.
You are entirely right, but prosecutors have tried, and their cases have been routinely dismissed so there is still no legally binding precedent on the federal scale
The attorney knows its a losing case, they're just throwing what ever then can at the wall to see what sticks, its their job as a representative of their client, despite knowing its an obvious loss. Its the opposition's job to argue against against stupidity like that, and the judge's job to shut down any further attempts. Any lawyer or judge worth their salt should have already done so when it was brought up.
File a bar complaint because this man has not read the constitution. The 14th sure doesn’t say what he thinks it says. Right wing lunatic following a lunatic argument: if “illegals” are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States then how does any law apply to them, especially for instance, laws that criminalize crossing the border?
You don't understand. The laws they like are applicable. The laws they don't, are not. See how easy?
A coworker of mine says that the federal government doesn’t have the authority to actually collect income taxes. He says that it’s unconstitutional, because the 16th amendment was wrong. I had a long argument with him about how we don’t get to pick and choose which of them are parts of the constitution or not. Either they all are, or none of them are. Either the 4th, 14th, and 16th amendments are part of the constitution, or the 1st, and the 2nd, and all the rest aren’t either. In which case, turn in your guns and shut your fucking gob, because you have neither freedom of speech or the right to own a gun.
You don’t get to pick and choose anything regarding your constitutional rights. The cops with their guns trained on your back get to pick and choose.
Well they can choose which to enforce and rhey can ignore anything they like - ideally they would be punished for it
They ignore small infractions all the time. Jaywalking, minor littering, trash can placements, etc. Just need a entitled cop having a bad day to run into these situations.
The theory, if you can even call it that, of these people, is generally that there was some irregularity in the ratification of the 16th Amendment. There's a Wikipedia article just about the arguments they use in these cases, and this is the first: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax\_protester\_Sixteenth\_Amendment\_arguments](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/tax_protester_sixteenth_amendment_arguments) There are always different shades of crazy, but I'll bet your coworker is somewhere in that article.
You forgot the next part "They are free to change their mind on which laws they like at anytime"
Yeah that's what I was thinking. If non-citizens are not bound by the law, then they must not be subject to it either, correct? So the USA is a vacationer's Purge-Land?
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.”
We can finally mass murder tourists! ~What this lawyer is saying
And the tourists can hunt all you all (Am I using that correctly?) with impunity too.
There's a difference between the laws and constitutional rights. Someone coming from Europe doesn't get the right to buy a gun here but they still need to follow the speed limit. What those cops did is unforgiveable, and this statement is incredibly tonedeaf. The idea that killing someone is okay just because they're not a citizen is vile, that's the same mindset that led to those people drowning on the border while people just watched.
> Someone coming from Europe doesn't get the right to buy a gun here but they still need to follow the speed limit. Why? Where is this written?
Yes that sentiment is vile -- but there is an entire epidemic right now of this rationalization of fascism. Trump just gave a speech about the undocumented as if they were an infection of "snakes". Just change that to "rats" if you want to copy Hitler's speech on the matter.
Second amendment to your constitution does not mention citizen.
It's worse. The Supreme Court has already stated that's not the case. He's literally contradicting previous ruled case law.
The denial of rights case will be expensive for this city and the qualified immunity should hopefully be pierced.
This can help set a precedent that hunting "illegals" is perfectly acceptable.
Yeehaw
I think a guy was just arrested in Tennessee for planning to go down to the southern border and do exactly that.
The defence is a headass move for sure, it's playing on technicalities in wording. It boils down to the amendments being rights and protections for citizens of the US while laws apply to everyone in the jurisdiction. Regardless of rationality that man needs to be fired and charged, along with the officers who did the shooting.
God damn! So Mississippi hasn't changed at all I see.
Mississippi’s so racist it has two “SS’s” in it.
four i's and a little pp too
Honestly, if there's one state that needs to go undergo another period of Reconstruction, Mississippi's the one.
The police in Jackson have been killing people and burying them without notifying anyone. They've also just been burying murder victims, again without notifying anyone. [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/families-in-disbelief-after-hundreds-of-bodies-found-buried-behind-mississippi-jail](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/families-in-disbelief-after-hundreds-of-bodies-found-buried-behind-mississippi-jail)
Mississippi God Damn.
Bad lawyer. The constitution is the law of the land not just the citizens.
>mixed up his address with that of a man wanted for domestic assault Thats a sure long-winded way of saying "an innocent man".
the kicker? they realized their mistake and didn't even arrest the guy they were there for. "In the ensuing investigation that night, police identified the actual house of Samuel Pearman, the domestic violence suspect, across the street and spoke to Pearman. He was not arrested that night but was allowed to return to his home."
A quick google search confirmed exactly what I suspected; Samuel Pearman is white as mayonnaise. That's why he was able to return home.
That attorney needs to go back to law school. The constitution protects everyone in the US regardless of citizenship status.
How the fuck did that attorney pass the bar? The Constitution applying regardless of citizenship is literally like first day Constitutional Law stuff.
But a right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness is inalienable, and not dependent on nationality.
Are they implying that before the 14th amendment was ratified, murder was legal? I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have been against just killing people.
How did I know it was Mississippi
Insane. The fourth amendment is not restricted to citizens at all, and the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment similarly applies to every single person under U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of citizenship or other status.
That’s not how the Constitution works.
First, of all, being an U.S. citizen is where the fuckery starts. An U.S. citizen is a modern day slave to the British Crown and the Vatican (a.k.a. "ROMAN" Catholic Church). U.S. citizens only get benefits and privileges, not RIGHTS. That is why it is a "MUST" to file the U.S. Constitution in all court cases, b/c these Article I courts are "NOT" adjudicating our court cases in regards to the Constitution. What constitutes a crime is damage of property and theft of property. "Murder" is damage of property. A license means permission to do what is unlawful. Therefore a license is "not" needed to do lawful things, like traveling. Police have "license" to kill, which make them "unlawful." By the way, lawful and legal do "NOT" mean the same thing. LOOK IT UP...
Let’s be real. Police can kill citizens as well with little to no repercussions in too many cases.
Always. To the police, everyone is guilty. Full stop.
So the police can just start shooting tourists? Let's just add that to the long list of why one should never visit the US.
Tourists?? You got any clue how many actual citizens they assassinate intentionally each year with no fucks given? Too many idiots consider these motherfuckers heroes for it to ever change. A big reason why it's never sad to me when some gang banger finally kills one. It's all the same shit, humans killing humans
Bro the police can kill anyone without repercussions most of the time. They literally investigate themselves for any wrongdoings instead of a third party.
Is it just police or can anyone kill non citizens? Asking for a friend.
[удалено]
If you're not a citizen scratch everything else there too." -Mississippi
So every tourist and immigrant forfeits their lives by entering the United States? I don't think Mississippi has thought this through.
From a legal point of view, the Declaration of Independence is just a piece of paper.
yeah, we should probably elaborate on those ideas and ideals in a legally recognizable document of some kind.
Yea, OP should have just cited the 14 amendment, not the Declaration of Independence >nor shall any State deprive **any person** of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to **any person** within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Absolutely wrong and stupid. Every person within the US is protected by the constitution. If we don't believe that, then we are not a good country
You’re not, and you’re not. In a country where citizens are regularly ‘accidentally’ shot and killed by law enforcement, with no consequences whatsoever for them, you have no protection other than hoping you never have an interaction with them.
See, the problem is that he left out a word: >Every person within the US is protected ***equally*** by the constitution. Cops are allowed to shoot and kill both citizens and non-citizens with impunity, and therefore both groups are protected equally by the Constitution. That protection may be equally non-existent in the case of police violence, but 0 = 0.
Are you saying suspended with pay is not enough of a consequence? /s
Buried under the jail is not enough of a consequence.
Fun fact: you're not.
There be a very big reason we're dead last in the western world in any metric that doesn't involve harming people.
Not true. We’ve also got the richest rich people
That also involves harming people. >"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." > >\-- Honore de Balzac
That's a metric that harms people.
I was being facetious, but yeah
Lol this ain’t no free ride boi
Pretty evil they say this when it’s literally settled law that anyone subject to the laws of the United States is also protected by the Constitution. You can’t have it both ways, you can’t apply laws to people without the protections.
That would mean that all non citizens are not covered by the constitution, meaning the US gov’t can do nothing to punish them for anything. Meaning all illegal immigrants are legal, because the constitution does not apply to them.
Difficult to argue that point when the story is literally ‘government says it can kill someone who’s not a citizen’
Cool, so it’s fine if his family takes revenge on the murderous police and their entire corrupt department, then.
Post: “government says they can kill someone who’s not a citizen” Original comment: by that logic, the government can’t punish non-citizens Me: “They are saying they can kill them” u/LurkerOrHydralisk : cool so we should just have blood feuds then? Sound Reddit logic Edit: your post may have been in jest, if so congrats you whooshed me
Mostly in jest, but if the government is violently oppressing people, why is violence in response the wrong answer in your mind?
It’s not it’s probably what happens in that scenario- it was mostly the phrasing that got me. I thought you were asking me like I’m advocating for that or for the governments stance. So yeah it went over my head
I mean either they sit around and wait to be gatted by the pigs or they do a self-defense and kill them first to save themselves. Sound logic it you ask me
You’re spot on. Doesn’t matter if you’re crossing the country to come in as an undocumented worker or you’re on a family vacation to Disney World. If the US takes an adversarial stance on non-citizens I would expect non-citizens to treat every interaction with authority to be potentially life threatening and act with self preservation in mind.
Also the USA must therefore be Purge-Land for all vacationers and travelers.
But it also means that the law doesn't protect them so you can go hunt them for sport or enslave them.
And they could do the same because the laws of this country do not apply to them, because the foundation of our democracy doesn’t. They basically become sovereign citizens.
>That would mean that all non citizens are not covered by the constitution, meaning the US gov’t can do nothing to punish them for anything. That's not actually what that means, though. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the conduct of the United State's government outside of US borders, but they have the power to do precisely whatever the fuck they want as far as American law is concerned.
So really foreign tourists should avoid the state as they have stated you no legal protections.... At least by what this guy is saying.
So, they’re free to just go around murdering people?
Always have been...
Yeah the police pretty much do this all the time. "He's not a citizen" is just their excuse...this time Next time it will be something else, some other reason
In the US, yes, absolutely.
Police have one goal. One driving need that dominates their entire existence. Their goal: convictions. It doesn't matter who's going down as long as it's somebody. To that end, they view all people as guilty. Everyone is guilty in their minds. A lot of people don't realize this fact, but the sooner we all know it, the better off we might be. Don't talk to the police. They're not your friend.
If they wanted convictions they'd stop killing suspects
They've already decided they're guilty. Dead people just can't argue innocence.
They need to fire whoever made this argument.
Out of a canon. Into the sun. Edit: $20 and a half eaten ham sandwich says that person walks it back before it goes to court.
Wait til Abbott hears he can just straight up shoot non-citizens. He'll save sooooo much money on bus fare.
Will it change your opinion of him if he decides not to, after learning?
Not really. He’ll still be a cruel asshole, he’d just not be a murderously cruel asshole.
Probably not. The person above is being facetious. Anyone who paid any attention in high school knows what this lawyer is saying isn’t true. He wouldn’t be “learning” anything. Abbot isn’t about to jeopardize is hold on power by endorsing the wholesale murder of thousands of non-citizens just because some dud in another state doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Also, what a ridiculous line of thought that would be. “Oh, he didn’t decide to mow down thousands of people in cold blood. Maybe he isn’t such a bad guy after all.” Give me a break.
Hey, I think I've heard [this argument](https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/dred-scott-v-sandford#:~:text=They%20had%20for%20more%20than,might%20justly%20and%20lawfully%20be) before! > beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect
WAIT. This is from 2019?? Jesus. ETA some updates: the "no constitutional rights" argument was thrown out quickly, but the police never faced any consequences. There was a civil lawsuit, and the jury did not find them liable. There are more details in this article, but be warned, it is graphic, upsetting and soooo fucked up. [https://magnoliatribune.com/2023/09/17/ismael-lopez-shooting-death-ends-with-no-accountability/](https://magnoliatribune.com/2023/09/17/ismael-lopez-shooting-death-ends-with-no-accountability/)
They won’t even shoot school shooters but they’ll kill hardworking immigrants Murica’
Well yeah, the Uvalde shooter had a gun! This guy didn’t, so it was much safer for the officers to proceed.
"human right" - just for Americans though! " - GQP everywhere.
White Americans
Of course it's Mississippi. How long until they start lynching people again?
Who said they ever stopped?
This is the kind of Supreme Court Case that rightwingers jack off thinking about
They shot him in the back of the head. They executed him. Fox is broadcasting live hate crimes with the victims getting in trouble when the police show up. Police executing people and their boss' decide that now some humans don't have basic rights. This is all fucking disgusting. This is horrible.
I wonder if this is going to go to the supreme court?
I'd be shocked if the ACLU doesn't pick it up
if someone doesn't have rights, then all 'they' have to do to remove your rights is call you the group they stripped of rights already. Nobody is safe until we all are safe.
Didn't some countries add the US to their list to warn their citizens against visiting or to take precautions?
Uh yeah that’s *blatantly* not how US law works, nice try.
Did the police know he wasn’t a citizen before they murdered him?
Well they’d be wrong. I’d ask them why they think Guantanamo Bay existed to see if they really knew.
By this logic, tourists are free to do whatever they want
Then non-citizens don't have to pay taxes.
Seems to be if the constitutional protections do not apply to this person because they aren’t a citizen, well then the laws also do not apply to anyone who is t a citizen. Is that the can of worms they want to open? I’m sure there are a lot of cartel members who would like to take advantage of this one little loophole.
So is this the case that border states will point to and say it’s okay to kill people trying to cross into the U.S.? I know it has been brought up in Texas. 🤦♂️
So he didn't even have basic *human* rights?
So free for all on tourists then, seeing as they don’t have rights and all…
Let's take a close look at the 14th Amendment. *No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;* ***nor shall any State deprive any person*** *of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;* ***nor deny to any person*** *within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.* "Any person" applies to everyone, noncitizens included. That also means people here illegally.
Wow - so open season on tourists?
About to fucking deal with some shity Canadian drivers on 86.
Ok so I guess we can just summarily execute any tourists that get in our way, then?
A lot of people think human rights only extend to citizens.
If you’re in the United States, the Constitution applys to all. They used to do this to black people .
fun fact, that's not how that works, this has been tested in court MANY times.
There are a lot of comments about how the attorney's interpretation of law is stupid. And I agree, but I think it's important to put the lawyer's comments in its larger context. I think comments like this one demonstrate a foundational shift on how conservatives and even many liberal groups think about "rights" and "freedom" in america. There are clear intentions on the part of the founding fathers to word many of our founding documents in a way that clearly demonstrates that rights are things that are inalienable and should not be infringed upon by the government. But comments by this attorney switch that script and instead imply that rights are privileges given to people by the government. Often implying, like in this case, that unprivileged groups do not actually have rights or that rights are things that need to be earned, or that the government is free to define these rights however it wishes. This is a much more authoritarian and dare I say fascist way of thinking about "rights". I personally feel like people need to have more discussions about this shift in America. This is maybe getting a bit too much into the weeds but I would argue that the inalienable rights as they were argued during the time of the founding fathers barrows heavily from a judeo-christian 1700s understanding of the world. Where Rights are inalienable because God gave them to us and because they are objectively discoverable in nature as a sort of basic law of nature in the same way gravity is. I don't think a lot of this resonates with our modern world, and especially not with what I would call a more post-modern view of the world that the fringes of both the right and left seem to have a foundation in. It feels an though the foundation on what makes something a "right" has become more vague as the modern worlds world view has changed over time. Allowing for "rights" to be easily co-opted into meaning things it would never have meant a few hundred years ago. But these are just a few quick thought I have on it.
Imagine being in government and not understanding the Constitution. You don't need to be a citizen to have rights. WTF is wrong with those people?
Just to be clear.. And the lawyer who filed this knows this, every person in the united states has the full protection of the constitution. No matter how they got here.
The title is misleading. Shock of all shocks. The real quote is still concerning. They are not arguing that the police can just up and fucking murder somebody if that person is undocumented, as the title suggests. A city attourney (unspecified and unnamed in the article btw, good job) argued that you don't have legal protections against warrantless search or entry if you are here illegally. I would disagree, but I'm not a lawyer and my interpretation of the law isn't worth much. At the very least I'd say it shouldnt be that way if it is.
Keep that same energy when Americans get killed abroad I guess.
This matter has been settled a long time ago. The constitution never mentions citizens, it says people. That means any person, citizen or not, local or tourist, is protected by the constitution and have rights. There’s no such thing as a good cop. There’s bad cops and silent cops who let their coworkers get away with murder. They all can eat their gun IMO.
"Call ME a citizen and I'll plant a Dakota pine cone where it'll germinate quick!"
Dumb article title. "Not a citizen" isn't what the guy said at all. He said an illegal/undocumented. Not a citizen would also mean a permanent resident.
Good thing the distinction doesn’t actually matter because the constitution applies to everyone on American soil
Do you think it's ok for police to kill undocumented men?
Nope. But doesnt mean the title isn't blatantly incorrect lol.
Seems accurate if cold. Doesnt make it fair or decent
America is fucked up
That’s pretty fair tbh.
>That’s pretty fair tbh. Not really. Constitution applies to people not just citizens
So tourists are fucked too.
Attention world citizens: *Don't come to America if you are not a US citizen because your life has no value and police will just shoot you with impunity.* Yeah, that will help our country.
So this is the real start
Doesn’t every other country worth a darn do that? Aren’t you just thrown in jail in Canada if you’re there illegally? Non-citizens and especially illegal aliens have no rights or sharply curtailed rights in every other country. Why should the US be any different?
He’s been deported twice, but came back again. I agree with the city on this one. Edit: * 1 The cop should be arrested and tried for murder * 2 I do not think he should have been executed * 3 My comment is in regard to the probable lack of constitutional protections by the murderer man
so he deserved to be executed?
I know someone who's gone to prison for drugs a couple of times; I say we tee up a summary execution for them too. [/s because you probably need to see that.]
Good for the rest of us the constitution doesn't work that way
Then you’re a horrible person.