>

Right and wrong is subjective. Your cultural and societal influences while growing up effect how you form the concepts of right and wrong. 
There is nothing that is objectively right or wrong.
It's a valuable lesson to learn in life, it's one big grey area.
Young ruled last year that federal immunity laws shielded Crocker and Gutierrez from Nazario’s claims that they violated his constitutional protections against excessive force and unreasonable seizure, as well as Nazario’s right to free speech by threatening him with arrest if he complained about their behavior.

That sounds interesting for why there would be "federal immunity shield" preventing a claim for actions that seem to be exactly what the government isn't allowed to do.  I'd dig into that further, but I've had enough disappointment for one day.  I'm sure there is some technical basis for why that "makes sense", but it doesn't read positively in this summary. >

Makes zero sense. Rights are there specifically to keep the government from violating them, and the ruling is that "well these government agents have special immunity so of course they're allowed to violate your rights!" >

If they can be taken away, they're not rights. >

Everything can be taken away. There is no such thing as rights >

Such an absurd take, if there's no such thing as rights why do we put so much effort into protecting them? >

Its a pointless empty statement to sound deep. >

So why do we protect rights then?
Wait you were talking about them werent you. Look at all the other comments of people doubling down, it's hilarious. >

Apologies if my message was unclear, I was agreeing with you.
If a law can be broken, is there no such thing as Laws? >

I realized it as soon as posted it, i get triggered pretty easily so it's not you. That is a great question, it's like they still think we live in the wild where there is no right or wrong.