The woman who actually lives in the house had just moved to Oklahoma City from Maryland with her family about two weeks earlier.

“I keep asking them, ‘who are you? What are you doing here? What’s happening,’” she said. “And they said, ‘we have a warrant for the house, a search warrant.’”

She said they ordered her and her daughters outside into the rain before they could even put on clothes.

“They wanted me to change in front of all of them, in between all of them,” she said. “My husband has not even seen my daughter in her undergarments—her own dad, because it’s respectful. You have her out there, a minor, in her underwear.”

Marisa said the names on the search warrant were not hers or anyone in her family.

“We just moved here from Maryland,” she said. “We’re citizens. That’s what I kept saying. We’re citizens.”

She said the agents didn’t care.

“They were very dismissive, very rough, very careless,” she said. “I kept pleading. I kept telling them we weren’t criminals. They were treating us like criminals. We were here by ourselves. We didn’t do anything.”

Marisa said the agents tore apart every square inch of the house and what few belongings they had, seizing their phones, laptops and their life savings in cash as “evidence.”

“I told them before they left, I said you took my phone. We have no money. I just moved here,” she said. “I have to feed my children. I’m going to need gas money. I need to be able to get around. Like, how do you just leave me like this? Like an abandoned dog.”

Before they left, Marisa said one of the agents made a comment.

“One of them said, ‘I know it was a little rough this morning,’” she said. “It was so denigrating. That you do all of this to a family, to women, your fellow citizens. And it was a little rough? You literally traumatized me and my daughters for life. We’re going to have to go get help or get over this somehow.”

Now, Marisa said they have, quite literally, nothing.

“I said, ‘when are we going to get our stuff back?’ They said it could be days or it could be months,” she said.

Marisa said she is left with nothing but questions.

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

    Illegal search and seizure. Where’s the nra? The various groups that swore to uphold the constitution?

  • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    19 days ago

    ICE needs to be abolished. If they can’t do their job effectively and legally then they shouldn’t have jobs.

        • KMAMURI@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          19 days ago

          Yea it keeps people hating people simply born somewhere else and ensures class warfare amongst the population.

          • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 days ago

            Immigration laws exist to manage the flow of people into and out of a country, regulating who can enter, for what purpose, and for how long. These laws are based on principles like family reunification, providing humanitarian aid, and recognizing skilled workers who benefit the economy. Additionally, they serve to ensure national security and public safety.

              • Suite404@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                19 days ago

                Gotta love how lazy people are that they can’t even argue their own point without asking a machine to make it for them.

                • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  19 days ago

                  Exactly how much arguing with people on Lemmy do you do that you find it too tiresome to do it yourself, but rather than just not engaging, you have a machine do it for you? Tbh, sounds like some shit a troll factory would do.

                • dickalan@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  17 days ago

                  The solution to not repeating yourself is to stop talking, but you just love the attention whether negative or positive

              • RedditIsDeddit@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                19 days ago

                They exist because governments need to understand who the hell is in their borders for numerous reasons. If you don’t think that borders should exist… well then countries don’t exist… and so on…

                • Snowclone@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  19 days ago

                  This is paranoia not reality. The US has had very open boarders for a long long time, the boarder between Mexico and the US only had check points for commerce for most of my life until W started the fever dream that people moving across the boarder is going to get all the white women killed. This isn’t reality. There aren’t droves of Mexicans raping and killing white women, in fact, immigrants commit the least amount of crime out of any group of people in the US. This isn’t a problem if you aren’t a fucking racist paranoid idiot.

            • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              19 days ago

              I’m going to disregard that first sentence because you’re explaining what they do, not giving good reasons for why they exist. In the second sentence, you indicated the principles that their existence is supposedly rooted in, but still fail to provide a good reason. Now, the third sentence: How do they ensure national security and public safety? Is there meaningful, demonstrable, or statistically significant evidence that this is the case, or are you taking it at face value to be the truth?

    • WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      19 days ago

      then they shouldn’t have jobs.

      for the rest of their lives. and no gov backed living either, they need to be forced to live under the bridge

    • Psythik@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      ICE needs to be abolished. If they can’t do their job effectively and legally then they shouldn’t have jobs.

      FTFY

    • Etterra@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      The cruelty is the point. ICE is the refuge for assholes too racist even by normal Texas police standards.

  • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 days ago

    Why is ICE seizing anything outside of whoever they supposedly had a warrant for? Did the warrant say take all electronics and valuables as they are being used to hide/fund someone we don’t like, but the people that live their, yeah their fine let them be? Like what? How is this not just want to be terrorists fucking over people with impunity?

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      How do you know they are even ICE. Not saying they aren’t agents, but there was an EO that basically repurposed a lot of other agencies to become ICE deputies. DEA, ATF, etc.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      Generally the search and seizure is for the property, not the people. That’s IF they bother with a warrant which apparently is a big ask these days.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      We decided we needed to be able to shut down drug dealers by seizing their money without need for any real proof. Since then the majority of seizures, 84%, are civil most incidental to purposeless searches that turn up no crime. Many seizures are in fact under $1000 and most are under $2000. In theory you can get your money back but it often would cost thousands so for most victims its impossible to actually get money back without spending more.

      Basically for decades the authorities have been acting as robbers and have collectively stolen billions from the people directly often stopping minorities for driving while black and treating the $400 in random bob’s wallet as proceeds of an imaginary crime they don’t need to substantiate. Being black and having $400 is enough.

      • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        We decided we needed to be able to shut down drug dealers by seizing their money without need for any real proof.

        This is why it was so important to declare a “War on Drugs.” Most people thought it was just political rhetoric, but it was far more than that. By declaring a literal WAR on drugs, it offers the government an array of options that aren’t available in peacetime. One of those being the ability to alter the way suspects/combatants and their possessions/ weapons are treated. Money and valuables can be treated as a tool of drug dealing, and confiscated as spoils of war.

        • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          Youre really misunderstanding what declaring an actual war is or is not. Technically the US has not been in an actual declared war since WWII.

          The Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Iraq wars, none of those were declared as actual war by congress. The war on drugs is just political rhetoric and has no actual legal bearing.

          You cant declare formal war on drug use because drug use isnt a recognized sovereign country

          • WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            19 days ago

            You’re misunderstanding that you don’t need to declare an actual war to use wartime emergency powers. At any given time there are dozens of official federal emergencies, some of which have been in place for decades, allowing the White House to claim emergency powers.

            • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              19 days ago

              You do need an actual war to use wartime emergency powers. There are declared emergencies other than war

          • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 days ago

            Youre argument makes no sense, and is contradicted in each sentence.

            The Vietnam War, the Korean War, the Iraq wars, none of those were declared as actual war by congress.

            And yet, they were still wars, with lots of deaths of Americans. Clearly, those that are committed to fighting wars, don’t feel like they require the distinction of being legally declared wars by Congress.

            The war on drugs is just political rhetoric and has no actual legal bearing.

            And yet many people have died, been imprisoned, and died as a result. Just try to tell people who are serving years or decades in prison that their sentences were just “political rhetoric,” and had “no actual legal bearing.”

            • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              20 days ago

              Youre fundamentally confusing what “political rhetoric” is versus what a legal action is. Calling the war on drugs a war doesnt make it a war with any actual legal modifications for anything.

              Calling the war on drugs a war is a political justification for the actions taken against drug use. Therefore, calling the war on drugs a war is not a legal thing. Its just political rhetoric.

              I dont see how else to explain that for you

              • barneypiccolo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                19 days ago

                You keep saying that, but their actual actions contradict that.

                Its like saying HitlerPig isn’t supposed to rule with Executive Actions, he needs to legislate through Congress, as Constitutionally-mandated, and yet here he is, doing it.

                It doesn’t matter what the law says, if the result is the same. They framed the “War on Drugs” as political rhetoric to provide plausible deniability for enablers like you, when in reality, it was absolutely used as a justification to greatly militarize law enforcement, deny citizens (mostly minorities) their Constituional and Civil Rights, increase prison sentences, embrace civil forfeiture, etc. You accepted it as strong language to fight the drug scourge, but they used it as cover to supress our rights, in the name of drugs.

                It worked so well, they used the same strategy again. In the 2000s, they used the threat of Terrorism to declare a War on Terror, and establish Homeland Security, and reduce our rights even more.

        • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          The war on drugs has only ever been rhetoric. It never literally gave anyone any additional powers because it is not in any way shape or form a declared war and has no legal meanings other than the ones you have completely fabricated in your alternate history.

    • Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      They have been doing shit like this for years anyway. The cops in some communities even outright stop countless vehicles coming out in order to 'seize drug money’and they end up taking any cash the person has without any evidence whatsoever. This is some Robin Hood villain shit.

      • 4am@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        Why does ICE have jurisdiction to seize civil assets anyway? Does my cash need a fucking passport now?

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        20 days ago

        It is so demoralizing to try and explain civil asset forfeiture. I’ve never had a single person believe that it’s real when I tell them about it - everybody insists that it can’t possibly be true since it’s so flagrantly unconstitutional.

        • conditional_soup@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          Same, most people assume I’m being a crazy person and I’m about to go off about some sovcit shit or “the moon is a NASA projector they lost control of in 1962!” Or something.

        • NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          20 days ago

          It’s “constitutional” because they’re accusing the “money” of being used illegally. There’s no actual person being accused here, but if you want to get your money back you’ll need to prove it’s innocence in court.

          It’s ridiculous. At least the Institute for Justice has been winning court cases against this, but there’s still a long way to go: https://ij.org/issues/private-property/civil-forfeiture/

          Edit: typo

        • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          19 days ago

          “The court system in my country is so close-knit with the police that they have a policy of not charging cops with most of the crimes they might commit when on duty or requiring any proof of their statements in court.” Yeah it’s demoralizing but I don’t find it hard to explain because at a high level the issue isn’t complicated.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        19 days ago

        There’s a movie called Rebel Ridge in which this practice, and a corrupt police department, serve as the antagonists. It’s a very harsh movie but very vindicating conclusion.

    • plz1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      The life savings were illegal immigrants?

      /s , obviously

      The real reason is probably civil asset forfeiture.

  • neon_nova@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    19 days ago

    It shouldn’t be important, but do we know their race? I read the article, but I may have missed it. I am assuming they are Hispanic.

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    20 days ago

    The agents had a search warrant for the home, but the suspects listed on the warrant do not live in the house.

    The woman who actually lives in the house had just moved to Oklahoma City from Maryland with her family about two weeks earlier.

    Right house, but different residents.

    What if you have your money in a safe? Are you obligated to open it? If they call a locksmith, hope the locksmith checks the address on the warrant?

    • GoodLuckToFriends@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Depends on the safe, but the people executing a search warrant, if it’s a proper search warrant, will either take the safe with them or stay there until it is opened. The locksmith is also (likely) going to be covered because he was acting at the direction of the police. That means he’s going to drill it, and probably won’t be looking at the search warrant as confirmation. A proper search warrant means you’re fucked unless the cops do something stupid, like looking in your cupboard when the search is for a cow.

      It’s bogus how heinous the government can be over small crimes.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      20 days ago

      It should be illegal…

      But with alternating between Republicans and neoliberals for 50 years, no one has ever actually put in serious effort to reign in police. Asset seizure is 100% legal and since they’re “charging” the money/property there’s no presumed innocence.

      Biden didn’t fix policing, Obama didn’t, and under Clinton it got worse in large part due to a bill Biden wrote.

      Obviously Republicans have been worse, but the point is shit doesn’t ever get better.

      We have a good DNC now, that won’t block good candidates, but that’s a very recent development

      Quick edit:

      This meant to be a reply to someone else, but something weird is happening

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        We have a good DNC now, that won’t block good candidates, but that’s a very recent development

        Wouldn’t be so sure about that. Ken Martin is out there trying to stop David Hogg from primarying incumbents.

        • cristo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          Good, Hogg has no traction and never will win an election. He should be the last choice for the left.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 days ago

            Huh? He’s not running for election; he’s using his PAC to support young progressives primarying Dem incumbents in safe blue seats.

              • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                20 days ago

                The bigger issue is that you felt it necessary to comment via assumptions rather than even doing a cursory google search. Without knowing anything about charisma or policy you said he should be the last choice for the left? Do you think the incumbents are doing a good job?

                • cristo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  19 days ago

                  No I don’t think incumbents are doing a good job, but I know David Hogg, his policy positions, and public outlook. He is not a good candidate in my opinion. I was surprised and thought he was running with the way he worded his comment.

  • NarrativeBear@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    1000024598

    In all seriousness these are the stories that have actually been reported, which means there are probably a lot more that have not been reported. Hope people start to rise up.

    • Ledericas@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      20 days ago

      MSMS intentionally dont report certain news that are too critical of trump, they probably are sitting on a ton of reports like these, but selective to gear it towards for the sake of a republican that happens to watch the news.

      • Seleni@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        Some people haven’t experienced anything bad yet, so they don’t care. Some people realize that once the fighting starts we’re all fucked for the next few decades at minimum and for a few centuries worst-case. And some people are positively thrilled by what’s happening and are cheering everything on.

        Hence why there’s no rioting, yet. I hope it’s coming, that we don’t just roll over like the Iranians and the Russians did for their autocrats, but I also fear that it is coming.

        • Ledericas@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          the tariffs hasnt hit most peoples stores yet, so its out of sight of mind. also because they think something will stop it down the line.

      • aramova@infosec.pubOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        20 days ago

        “Woman with no active warrants shot by police searching for illegal immigrant gang members”

        –Mass media

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          The fecklessness of the mass media, and anyone that believes journalism is just repeating/reporting on what was said is certainly without end. Any journalist or Outlet that frets over access to groups or individuals because of their reporting aren’t involved in journalism. Just complicit in aiding propaganda. And we’ve just described almost every last bit of a media sadly.

        • Terrasque@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          “South American shot after opening fire on police searching for illegal immigrant gang members”

          FTFY

        • jballs@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          “Woman with no active warrants shot by police searching during search for illegal immigrant gang members”

          I think this is how it would likely be reported. Making it a more passive action would shield responsibility.

        • Eldritch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          20 days ago

          Was it deleted? It seems fine on my end though I might be missing something. My best guess and the only logical thing to suspect. Is that pointing out fascists would gleefully kill anyone who resists them was somehow mistaken as call for violence. Not just simply acknowledging the behavior of fascists.

          I’m not a big advocate for arming in general. In a just Civil Society there should be no need for weapons and guns. However we don’t live in such a society at this point. And I think it’s a good idea for everyone especially the vulnerable and minorities to arm themselves in the face of the fascist. But I certainly will not scold them for not doing so. Because it absolutely could escalate things and cost them their life. It’s going to happen at some point though. I don’t want it to, but if people keep failing to put the fascists down. It will

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            20 days ago

            Might have been “because repost.”

            To your other points, everything good must be backed up with “We’ll fight you to the death over this if we have to.”

  • Pyr@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    20 days ago

    How long before people start pretending to be ICE to basically break and enter into homes to rob people? Not like they can fight back, or even question things, or have due process, if someone in an ICE vest shows up at your door.

    • MBech@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      If I break into your house, force you into the street at gunpoint and steal everything of value, will you be happy with a “it was just a mistake, shit happens, get over it”? Grow some fucking empathy for fucks sake. It isn’t that fucking hard.

    • ArchRecord@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      19 days ago

      Ah yes, the “mistake” of deliberately stealing an entire family’s belongings. Easy mistake to make.