this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2026
145 points (99.3% liked)

news

808 readers
991 users here now

A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.

Rules:

  1. Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
  2. Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
  3. Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
  4. Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
  5. No link shorteners
  6. No entire article in the post body

founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] DrFistington@lemmy.world 35 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Technically wouldn't ice be considered mandated reporters? If they are, that could actually be a really good way to go after them in court and possibly sidestep qualified immunity claims. You aren't going after them for what they did. You'd be going after them for failing to report the abuses they committed

[–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And when the judge's decision isn't enforced, what do we do?

[–] Newsteinleo 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just because a judgement may not be enforced does not mean we shouldn't pursue a judgement. Giving up before trying is what the bad guys want you to do. If we have an unenforced judgement we have one more thing we can point at to show how corrupt this government is.

[–] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago

Note i didn't ask what's the point, i asked what do we do!

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

Arrest them, and shoot them if they resist.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Per Minnesota Law, yes. Law enforcement are mandated reporters. If they are, could that go after QI claims? I'm not a lawyer but hey go for it. First you have to overcome Sovereign Immunity and get them to agree to the suit if i recall and then there has to be no prior case law addressing it. (i worked in a different title so this is not my cup of tea i'm just remembering what the family judge taught me. I could be all wrong).