A new spate of Justice Department officials quit because their section didn't want to probe Renee Good's shooting
www.ms.now
At least four leaders of the Civil Rights Division resigned because the section's head, Harmeet Dhillon, decided not to investigate shooting of Renee Good.

At least four leaders of the Civil Rights Division resigned because the section’s head, Harmeet Dhillon, decided not to investigate shooting of Renee Good.

Top leaders of the criminal section of the Civil Rights Division have left their jobs to register their frustration with the department after the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon decided not to investigate the ICE officer’s fatal shooting of Renee Good last week.

The criminal section of the division would normally investigate any fatal shooting by a law enforcement officer and specializes in probing potential or alleged abuse or improper use of force by law enforcement.

The departures – including that of the chief of the section, as well as the principal deputy chief, deputy chief and acting deputy chief – represent the most significant mass resignation at the Justice Department since February. At that time, five leaders and supervisors of the department’s Public Integrity Section, which investigates public officials for possible corruption, resigned rather than comply with an appointee of Donald Trump’s orders to dismiss the bribery case against then-New York mayor Eric Adams.

  • piwakawakas@lemmy.nz
    15·
    2 days ago

    You’re not wrong.

    But I’ve also seen people saying that the government is fascist /Nazi. If you’re working for the government (especially somewhere like the DOJ) then that’s akin to saying you support the government.

    So it’s a hard decision to make either way

    • OshagHennessey@lemmy.world
      2·
      1 day ago

      At the end of the regime, sure. In these early phases, it’s acceptable to remain in power in order to loudly and publicly resist. Otherwise, their revolution will succeed simply because no resistance was offered.

    • BanMe@lemmy.world
      10·
      2 days ago

      Everyone is so concerned with the statement they’re making and the optics around it.

      This is their career. They chose to work in civil rights. They have to go there every day. They have to look at themselves in the mirror at night.

      Having personal standards and ethics is a thing to be celebrated, or it used to be. “How dare these people make a personal and professional choice they have to live with that offends my sense of strategy” is not exactly a great perspective.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        1 day ago

        And they could have very easily continued to do their job, while maintaining their ethics, and force the state to fire them. Then force the state to explain in court why they were fired.

        Instead of just politely stepping out of the way and handing full control over to tyranny.

      • OshagHennessey@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 day ago

        Exactly, this is their career. And in the most critical moment of their career, they showed us what they’re willing to do, how far they’re willing to go on our behalf, to preserve our of life that places political power in the hands of democratically-elected officials, and not government-appointed loyalists.

      • piwakawakas@lemmy.nz
        6·
        2 days ago

        For sure. And everyone has a different line in the sand.

        I’m not trying to say one option is good or bad, because there are merits in both arguments. It’s easy to say you’d do this or that when you’re spectating. But it’s much harder when you’re actually doing it.

        And for me personally, I think they made the right call. But I’m just a guy sitting at home (who doesn’t even live in the states) so who am I to judge them?