• Cruel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    You’re under the mistaken belief that it’s criminal to violate Constitutional rights.

      • Cruel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        That’s two or more people conspiring to violate rights. People still routinely have their Constitutional rights violated and it’s not criminal. I’m literally litigating a § 1983 federal lawsuit right now. It’s rarely criminal. Just stop spreading misinformation.

        • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          a 1983 is a deprivation of rights and amounts to a finding of legal implication. it’s a far more serious section compared to 241 because it implies both intent and execution.

          241 implies conspiracy to commit to a violation of rights which would fit the current argument better than 1983 since there’s a lack of motive and evidence against the DOJ for violating his sixth. it could be used as discovery to identify evidence between communications to lead to 1983.

          a crime is a crime, regardless of who/what committed it. the government is no exception, however it’s not like you can slap cuffs on the entire DOJ. those individuals involved would need to be charged for anything to stick. no different than if an employer killed an employee through neglect. those responsible would be charged, but the company would get off mostly unscathed.

          • Cruel@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            It is difficult to prove willful violation of rights (required for a criminal case) which is why it doesn’t happen often, even while people’s rights are violated routinely.

              • Cruel@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Both in this particular case, I’m doing it pro se. I can’t legally represent anyone, so I represent myself when the need arises and provide assistance to others who cannot afford help, usually prisoners. I’m focusing on 8th amendment violations such as excessive force claims and poor prison conditions. It’s a useful form of activism, even if a suit is not ultimately successful. It costs them either way.

                • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  wow. legal consultant, software engineer, sec-ops, defender of pedophiles, network engineer, detective, farmer.

                  most impressive.

                  how do you find the time to grace us plebeians with your large intellect?

                  no need to answer, I have a suspicion on how it’s possible.

                  • Cruel@programming.dev
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    I’m a software engineer with only a little legal background.

                    I’m none of the other things you listed. Most the prisoners I help are not pedophiles. And I only manage my product’s server cluster because I don’t have money yet to hire anyone. I’m not good at devops or networking. 🤷