Photographer Job Garcia, a US citizen, seeks recompense after reportedly being tackled and thrown to the ground

A US citizen is seeking $1m in recompense from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies after being arrested by officials last month when filming an immigration raid at a Home Depot store.

Job Garcia, a 37-year-old a photographer and PhD student at Claremont Graduate University, was tackled, thrown to the ground, arrested and detained for over 24 hours, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (Maldef) said. The advocacy group is representing Garcia.

The arrest of immigrants has escalated nationwide, notably at Home Depot sites, where undocumented laborers in particular gather in parking lots outside branches of the store chain, waiting to be picked up for casual work.

top 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I hope Stephen Miller's toilet paper turns to sandpaper every time he tries to use it.

Edit:

Apologies for accidentally cursing Steve Miller

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • Good, there shoukd be huge penalties for fucking with journalism

  • source
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I feel like we should know who these ice agents are and have constant protests outside their homes. They shouldn't be able to sleep soundly at night

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 73 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I hope he's well protected because I doubt they would hesitate to send him to Venezuela (by mistake of course!)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Hope he wins and it could pay off his tuition.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I don't know about the million dollars but the right to film in public and to film public officials while they are doing their jobs is covered by the first amendment's freedom of the press. It's gone to SCOTUS multiple times and been upheld and strengthened each time. Not saying that there's no way this particular SCOTUS would overturn those rulings but it would be a huge deal and seriously negatively affect not individuals but a bunch of major corporations so that at least would probably give them some pause.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I guess another option is to use drones to record ICE terrorist activities.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    They got a nice new budget i hope he gets a super fat chunk of it.

  • source
  • 27 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 127 points 1 year ago* (10 children)

    The DHS views the situation differently. In a statement to NBC, a department spokesperson said that “Garcia assaulted and verbally harassed a federal agent and that he was subdued and arrested for the alleged assault”.

    They say this every time, whether or not there is footage obviously proving otherwise.

    Apart from being so insulting and pathetic that this is the government's generic response to unconstitutional arrests (though he is suing under a tort law due presumptively due to qualified immunity), it's also outright defamatory to falsely claim that someone has committed a crime and assaulted ICE.

    The story doesn't provide evidence either way, but if this just is their typical Baghdad Bob propaganda, I hope the victims of ICE start to sue for defamation as well - drain the new bill's obscene funding with a wave of court-ordered compensation to ICE's victims.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    Is verbal harassment of police and such even a thing? What if he did shout 'fucking pigs' or whatever while he was videoing? To me that would change nothing - but would it?

    provide evidence either way, but if this just is their typical Baghdad Bob propaganda, I

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • They say he was arrested for the "assault," but yep, they intentionally phrased it to conflate "verbal harassment" with actual (if true) criminal conduct. It's a meaningless phrase.

    If anything, they put it there because to the right wing base, it justifies police violence or could support disorderly conduct, or one of the other catch-all pretextual "crimes" used when police want to arrest someone for no real reason.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    These people are arguing in the court of public opinion. The guy could be 100% in the clear legally and it wouldn't matter if public opinion is against him. The governlent has been doing tons of unconstitutional/illegal things, but only reversed the ones with widespread negative public sentiment

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Verbal harassment isn't a thing. You can legally tell a cop to fuck off while flipping them off. The only kind of speech that isn't allowed is "fighting words" or calls to violence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    To a cop, hearing "fuck off" and being flipped off is fighting words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    I hope the victims of ICE start to sue for defamation as well - drain the new bill's obscene funding with a wave of court-ordered compensation to ICE's victims.

    Oh man, seeing how all of this bill is basically "trickling up" wealth again , it'd be kinda hilarious to use strategic ICE suing to drain it back down to the people again.

    Lawyers would see it as blood in the water after one or two successful cases, especially after that huge budget increase. Gold rush on ICE lol!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 75 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • [+] 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    This is actually a thing called Digiscoping. Search Digiscoping adapters on Amazon and you can attach your cellphone to binoculars. I actually do this as a hobby, that is, doing wildlife photography on a cellphone, which usually requires a telephoto lens. Not to hijack the post but you can see the results on my IG page at theCronicBirder. I have some reels that show the zoom effect. I use a spotting scope instead of binoculars to get a farther reach.

  • source
  • parent
  • Aiming a little low IMO

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    In before "YoU CaN'T SuE ThE GoVeRnMeNt" /s

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Applicability of the federal torts act to sovereign immunity is always a good point of discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Something else everyone should know about QI

    http://web.archive.org/web/20230520080201/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html

    It has literally no legal basis and the 1982 SCOTUS was unknowingly given the wrong text of the law as passed by Congress.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    In this case they're trying to sue the government itself which has sovereign immunity, not qualified. Congress passed a law that allowed some channels past that sovereign immunity but the courts have been very conservative as to how it's interpreted. That's the federal torts claims act. One of the key things it doesn't cover is intentional torts. So if someone though negligence hit you in the mouth and knocked the teeth out, you can sue. If, by contrast, they did it through malice and battery you cannot but you can break through their personal qualified immunity if you could prove malice. Good luck

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Or maybe start holding some of these large corporations (fruit companies, Home Depot) responsible for encouraging and enabling illegal migrant labor ?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Home Depot doesn’t employ them. It’s just a convenient parking lot to hang out on looking for day jobs.

    My ex’s uncle, conservative asshole had a Russian mail order bride and was staunchly against immigrants. However that didn’t stop him from going down to the Home Depot and hiring a couple to do things like clear brush and move hillsides (although karma came around and he was put on some kind of blacklist where they refused to work for him because of the work he had them do)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yes, if they really wanted to stop illegal workers they would hold the employers at fault for the charges. If they were actually worried about theft, and fraud, they would be going after employers and contractors, not the peasantry. This is just a violent display of who is on top, and demonstration of how small you are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)
  • That is the moral thing to do. What I am discussing is that if they are interested in enforcing the law, as it is, they need to go after the businesses illegally employing them. That is not what they are interested in though, this is just a show of power.

  • source
  • parent
  • 6 comments in c/boycottus@lemmy.ca view that post
    [–] 24 points 1 year ago

    Photographer Job Garcia, a US citizen, seeks recompense after reportedly being tackled and thrown to the ground

    Ah, explains a lot.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I hope he wins 100x that against those unconstitutional bags of....

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago
    [+] -16 points 1 year ago (2 children)