ICE in Minneapolis

[lurker]

Sort of.

Per In re Neagle, federal officers carrying out their duties are immune from state criminal law. The Supremacy Clause. This isn't necessarily automatic. Per Neagle, there is a two-part test which determines whether or not an officer will be granted immunity from prosecution.

Firstly it is determined whether or not the officer was acting within duties authorized by federal law. This is undisputed and it never goes more than surface level. Secondly were his actions necessary and proper to fulfilling his federal duties? In order to determine the second question, it is a question of whether the officer 'reasonably thought'. So basically what would a reasonable person do in that case.

The answer to that second question, or should I say how the answer is reached is often quite vague and inconsistent and I could write a lot more about it but I'm not the judge. Essentially the court will analyze the reasonableness of his beliefs and whether or not he acted in good faith. If that is disputed, then the clause won't apply. A good example is Idaho v Horiuchi. It will also be analyzed whether or not the officer acted out of any personal interests. State law for the most part has no relevance to the court's judgement.

It gets more complex though because some courts analyze it differently to others. Some will put more focus on a more strict reasonableness test whereas others use a more lenient "criminal intent" test. This means that unreasonableness is not enough to lose immunity, rather an officer must have actual criminal intent.


I do not see any argument for the officers actions to be considered reasonable, and I would go further to say also for his actions to be considered good faith. So if we were to see a similar line of judgement to that in Idaho v Horiuchi then immunity would not be granted. But then again some courts opt to ignore the reasonableness of one's actions unless it's so far outside the scope of reasonableness.

What I do know, is that we have undisputed historical facts. We have a clear video of the incident. It is clear that the officer was not in front at the time of shooting. It was clear that no danger was posed to the officer at the time of the 2nd and 3rd shots.

So yeh, it's complicated.

I thought he told me he was in the studio music business or something in that field.

From the other thread, post #29

Morgs wrote: Now Ty, you have legal training.

—-- so you have a legal training background too,

[Tyy7777]

She didn't Comply. Then got shot. The end.

Not complying doesn't mean you should be killed.

Morgs can help me out here but aren't officers trained/told that a fleeing suspect is not grounds to shoot???

[lurker]

Evidence favors the ICE officer as more footage emerges: Jonathan Turley - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lit0Fz803T4

[lurker]

Driver in Minneapolis shooting had been ‘harassing’ officers before incident: ICE official -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatOXth4oXc

[lurker]

Megyn Kelly Breaks Down What the Minnesota ICE Shooting Videos REALLY Show and Reveals NEW Info - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH4W1TyUeQg&t=11s

[Tyy7777]

From the other thread, post #29

Morgs wrote: Now Ty, you have legal training.

—-- so you have a legal training background too,

https://www.4m.net/forum/tailgate/tailgate-aa/1683606-team-trump/page10

Post 138 holds the answers you seek.

[lurker]

Not complying doesn't mean you should be killed.

SMH —- You crack me up.

[Tyy7777]

Evidence favors the ICE officer as more footage emerges: Jonathan Turley - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lit0Fz803T4

Ok let's assume that what they claimed the video showed was true (I'm skeptical) but let's rock with it.

He didn't shoot until HE WAS TO THE SIDE, and effectively out of the danger he was supposedly in.

Now let's give the benefit of the doubt even further and say that it all happened quickly, why did he shoot another 2 or 3 times?

[Tyy7777]

SMH —- You crack me up.

If I try to run away from the cops, should I be killed?

[lurker]

https://www.4m.net/forum/tailgate/tailgate-aa/1683606-team-trump/page10

Post 138 holds the answers you seek.

So you have a legal degree. Its Yes or No

[Tyy7777]

So you have a legal degree. Its Yes or No

Do you have reading comprehension issues. I'm quite concerned. READ the post.

[lurker]

No where do I read you have a legal background.

https://www.4m.net/forum/tailgate/ta...m-trump/page10


Post 138 holds the answers you seek.

Why so vague and cryptic?

[lurker]

—---- why did he shoot another 2 or 3 times?

Wanted to make sure the threat was down for good?

[lurker]

If I try to run away from the cops, should I be killed?

Why are YOU running from the cops in the first place?

[Tyy7777]

Keep on licking that boot for good. I’ve given you a chance but you’re completely full of it.

I’ll stick to engaging with Morgs, as he is at least honest and in good faith. That is if I don’t leave this sh1thole!