Last week I saw some dashcam video of a masked ICE agent (or similar, they don't have uniforms or proper identification) leaping out of a car and pointing a gun at someone who photographed the car's license plate.
Appellate courts in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have all held there's a first amendment right to film police, and that law enforcement officers do not have an expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties.
> dashcam video of a masked ICE agent (or similar, they don't have uniforms or proper identification) leaping out of a car and pointing a gun at someone who photographed the car's license plate
We're unfortunately waiting for one of those ICE agents, on camera, to pull the trigger and kill or brutally maim someone doing nothing other than filming, or worse an innocent bystander. It doesn't seem like our political system or even high court currently have the coherence to deal with evil in less-stark terms.
(To my knowledge, there isn't a firearms proficiency requirement for ICE agents. And a basic rule of firearm safety is you don't point your gun at anything you don't eventually want to get shot.)
> We're unfortunately waiting for one of those ICE agents, on camera, to pull the trigger and kill or brutally maim someone doing nothing other than filming, or worse an innocent bystander. It doesn't seem like our political system or even high court currently have the coherence to deal with evil in less-stark terms.
A. Without badges, or have badges without numbers. Toy-store style.
B. Are faceless.
C. Do not have names displayed.
D. Do not have warrants.
These were mentioned, IIRC, in an ACLU complaint which resulted in restraining orders (see [0]) though the order addressed two points not specifically related to the above.
> The first TRO bars immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and from relying on four factors – alone or in combination – including apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; presence in a particular location like a bus stop, car wash, or agricultural site; or the work the person does.
> The second TRO orders DHS to provide access to counsel on weekdays, weekends, and holidays for people who are detained in B-18, the federal building in downtown Los Angeles.
IANAL, but the four points I mentioned above are beyond acceptable police behavior, and likely unconstitutional. People have a right to document both daily public police actions and ones that are beyond the pale and likely unconstitutional.
Regular police officers have badges with numbers, faces, names and warrants.
Source? (Either for it not having been the case before or for it being the case right now. Ideally with case citations; trying to dig deeper than vibes.)
It's not that they have any statutory authority to do so: it's that because Trump is above the law, and the courts have no power to stop him, ICE, which is his personal Gestapo, can also ignore the law.
If some masked, unidentified guy grabs you and tells you to get in his car, how are you supposed to know if he is an ICE agent or a kidnapper? Scary stuff.
That's rich because conservative and libertarian groups (especially the intellectual wing) have long opposed the idea that "speech can be violence" [1][2][3]
What is the current SOTA advice on what to do if 1) approached and asked questions by ICE, 2) detained by ICE; broken down by A) “I’m a US citizen”, B) “I’m not a US citizen, have legal status to be in the US”, C) “I’m not a US citizen, don’t have legal status to be in the US”?
> the 700% increase touted in press releases reflected a mere 69 more assaults on officers than during the same period in 2024. Hardly worth remarking on.
Last week I saw some dashcam video of a masked ICE agent (or similar, they don't have uniforms or proper identification) leaping out of a car and pointing a gun at someone who photographed the car's license plate.
Appellate courts in the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have all held there's a first amendment right to film police, and that law enforcement officers do not have an expectation of privacy in the performance of their duties.
> dashcam video of a masked ICE agent (or similar, they don't have uniforms or proper identification) leaping out of a car and pointing a gun at someone who photographed the car's license plate
We're unfortunately waiting for one of those ICE agents, on camera, to pull the trigger and kill or brutally maim someone doing nothing other than filming, or worse an innocent bystander. It doesn't seem like our political system or even high court currently have the coherence to deal with evil in less-stark terms.
(To my knowledge, there isn't a firearms proficiency requirement for ICE agents. And a basic rule of firearm safety is you don't point your gun at anything you don't eventually want to get shot.)
> To my knowledge, there isn't a firearms proficiency requirement for ICE agents.
Source ?
Nope, I was wrong [1].
(I got thrown off by this memo [2].)
[1] https://imlive.s3.amazonaws.com/Federal%20Government/ID25542...
[2] https://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/family-residential/pdf/rs_sta...
> We're unfortunately waiting for one of those ICE agents, on camera, to pull the trigger and kill or brutally maim someone doing nothing other than filming, or worse an innocent bystander. It doesn't seem like our political system or even high court currently have the coherence to deal with evil in less-stark terms.
They won't deal with it then, either.
They will see the public not really react and realize they can just do whatever they want.
This only matters if the Executive Branch is answerable to the courts, which clearly they are not any more.
For all we know, that was just some psychopath in a car leaping out and pointing a gun at someone.
In several parts of the country, doing that puts your life at immediate and substantial risk.
Obviously this is clearly and demonstrably because those courts are odd.
ICE "officers" are almost always.
A. Without badges, or have badges without numbers. Toy-store style.
B. Are faceless.
C. Do not have names displayed.
D. Do not have warrants.
These were mentioned, IIRC, in an ACLU complaint which resulted in restraining orders (see [0]) though the order addressed two points not specifically related to the above.
> The first TRO bars immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and from relying on four factors – alone or in combination – including apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; presence in a particular location like a bus stop, car wash, or agricultural site; or the work the person does.
> The second TRO orders DHS to provide access to counsel on weekdays, weekends, and holidays for people who are detained in B-18, the federal building in downtown Los Angeles.
IANAL, but the four points I mentioned above are beyond acceptable police behavior, and likely unconstitutional. People have a right to document both daily public police actions and ones that are beyond the pale and likely unconstitutional.
Regular police officers have badges with numbers, faces, names and warrants.
[0] https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/court-prohibits-...
> the four points I mentioned above are beyond acceptable police behavior, and likely unconstitutional
Do ICE agents get free pass to ignore state laws by their federal organisation?
with the current courts they do.
> with the current courts they do
Source? (Either for it not having been the case before or for it being the case right now. Ideally with case citations; trying to dig deeper than vibes.)
It's not that they have any statutory authority to do so: it's that because Trump is above the law, and the courts have no power to stop him, ICE, which is his personal Gestapo, can also ignore the law.
"They'd rather see me in a cell than me with my cell and a different story to tell."
- B. Dolan - Film the Police [2012] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyT1buoyTnY
If some masked, unidentified guy grabs you and tells you to get in his car, how are you supposed to know if he is an ICE agent or a kidnapper? Scary stuff.
Scary stuff indeed:
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/04/us/ice-impersonators-on-t...
And enjoy your jail time for assaulting an officer if you resist.
> enjoy your jail time for assaulting an officer if you resist
Are any of these charges sticking? We haen't even gotten to the phase where the victims start filing civil cases for money damages.
Just getting charged is enough to ruin your life. Lose your job from being thrown in jail missing work without anyone being notified.
It is working, we need to keep filming.
That's rich because conservative and libertarian groups (especially the intellectual wing) have long opposed the idea that "speech can be violence" [1][2][3]
[1] https://adflegal.org/article/speech-not-violence-and-violenc...
[2] https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/national-speech-index...
[3] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/why-it...
Now they want us to believe that cameras are threats of violence.
[dead]
[flagged]
sure, but self-defense is also a form of violence.
What is the current SOTA advice on what to do if 1) approached and asked questions by ICE, 2) detained by ICE; broken down by A) “I’m a US citizen”, B) “I’m not a US citizen, have legal status to be in the US”, C) “I’m not a US citizen, don’t have legal status to be in the US”?
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/immigrants-rights
The main thing you need is someone on the outside who will fight for you.
> the 700% increase touted in press releases reflected a mere 69 more assaults on officers than during the same period in 2024. Hardly worth remarking on.
Classic case of ICE lying with stats.
As opposed to what, filming violations to the US Constitution ?
[flagged]
[flagged]
Yup, vigilantism is the inevitable and unfortunate result of this kind of bullshit.
[flagged]
One way to not be in the dangerous situation of being a hated goon is to avoid being a hated goon.
Hated goon advice there.
[dead]