ICE in Minneapolis

[lurker]

Honest? You can’t even answer a simple question if you have legal training or not.


I’ve been 100% honest with you on this thread topic.


I’m full of it because you can’t libtard brainwash me?

[Tyy7777]

Honest? You can’t even answer a simple question if you have legal training or not.


I’ve been 100% honest with you on this thread topic.


I’m full of it because you can’t libtard brainwash me?

How hard is it to click on a post? A post where it clearly states my background as I’ve mentioned numerous times.

Morgs can read…why can’t you?

[lurker]

I went and did my JD and LLM.

I read it. 100x


Not sure why you can’t just spit out, “yes I have a law degree”?


That is unless you wanted to hide behind it, so you’re not being judged when you post. .


If I was being an a$$ about it from the get-go, I would have asked you if you ever passed the Bar Exam when you posted the “JD and LLM” statement back on 05-23-2025, 06:48 AM

[Morgs153]

The reasonable standard is not necessarily what any reasonable "person" would do in that situation, it is what would another "law enforcement" person reasonably do in that situation. The test of reasonable is not applied to just any layman in that situation it is applied to other law enforcement in a similar set of circumstances based on a variety of factors.

The Idaho case you brought up is drastically different . Lon Horiuchi was an FBI sniper. Horiuchi shot and killed Randy Weaver's wife from a considerable distance while she was standing on a porch, unarmed, holding a infant child. It is very hard to argue a reasonable standard that he (Horiuchi) felt that there was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm from Mrs Weaver in that scenario when Mrs Weaver had no weapon or delivery system for a weapon. He was just "following orders" by blowing her brains out from quite a distance away.

I brought up earlier in this thread the situation of Michael Byrd killing Ashli Babbitt. Ashli Babbitt had no weapon, her hands were empty (hands usually can hold weapons) she was sticking her head through a window and that window was too small for her to crawl through, and behind her were several other law enforcement officers who could have easily effected an arrest. Byrd shot her in the neck and killed her. Still, in that case because Byrd was a federal officer (USCP) there was no state criminal charge levied against him (Nagle). Babbitt's family received a very large settlement.

Now in this case it can be argued that there is a weapon and delivery system involved. A 4000# vehicle, running, placed in drive (not in park), with a driver at the controls can be a weapon and can be presented as a delivery system coupled with the intent of not following orders and putting the vehicle in motion. There is actually more here than there is in the two examples cited above.

Ask yourself this. If the roles were reversed. If an ICE agent was alone in a vehicle and got surrounded by a group of anti-ICE protesters and that agent put his vehicle in motion and tried to drive away and maybe only injured someone standing in the way, wouldn't all these critics be saying that was akin to "attempted murder" and "he used his vehicle as a weapon"? You better believe they would. A vehicle can be reasonably considered a weapon and that has been demonstrated and affirmed countless times.

For all the people who are recklessly throwing around the charge "murder" they need to educate themselves. A federal murder charge is very specific and only really applies in specific circumstances. Things like killing a federal official, or doing such crime on federal property or military bases, something involving a federal crime like bank robbery, drug trafficking, or killing a kidnapping victim after crossing state lines. It is very limited in scope and does not apply here. State courts usually charge cases involving homicides and if the feds get involved it usually is done via civil rights case. I don't expect novices to know this but I certainly expect law makers in Congress to know that and some of them are being quite reckless with their hyperbole. They are not interested quieting this down. Quite the contrary, they are throwing gas on hot coals. I don't expect people making click-bait internet death porn to be responsible. Most of them are talking out of their @sses but if I can explain this in a couple few paragraphs you'd think the media could. I just made myself laugh....

This was a very regrettable situation. I've said before that many things can be true at the same time. For all the things that people are saying about what a great, loving, caring and wonderful person this victim of the shooting was, I believe them. I take them at their word. I think they are telling the truth. The other truth is that she acted stupidly by putting herself in that situation. They say she was a wonderful mother. You wanna know who else is a wonderful mother? My wife, and even though our kids are all adults I can guarantee you that I would have never ever have had to worry that when our kids were small that she would have taken a day off to drive her vehicle into a stupid protest and put herself into a dangerous situation. Why? Because her number one focus every single day, and even to this day, is an unwavering focus on our children. I actually feel bad for this woman and her surviving family because she was taken down the path she was. That she was put into this situation where she didn't just stand on a sidewalk with a sign and shout, but get in her vehicle and become a kinetic participant. That was stupid.

[lurker]

Morgs, thanks for the detailed posting.

[lurker]

Renee Good was in Minnesota 'ICE watch' activist group - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYGfsjhoXug

[Morgs153]

Hey Ty, you should have done law school in Wisconsin. Diploma privilege! The only state where, if you graduated law school in Wisconsin, you do not need to pass a bar exam to practice law.

I don't know that's necessarily a good thing or not because, I've experienced some of those graduates....

[Highside Hustler25]

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!

Well, bye!👋

[lurker]

You can clearly see he is not in front of the vehicle and the woman has turned her wheels.

Really?

Positioning of the Agent’s Gun at the Shooting in Minneapolis - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9C-ubG6wrQ

New video taken by ICE agent involved in Minnesota shooting surfaces - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVMBDUcLXQI


You’ve been wrong on this from the get-go. Sadly, you’ve been pushing the social justice warrior narrative.

[lurker]

We have a clear video of the incident. It is clear that the officer was not in front at the time of shooting.

Would you care to retract that statement, Counselor?

[lurker]

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

One more time - Would you care to retract that statement, Counselor?

[Tyy7777]

The reasonable standard is not necessarily what any reasonable "person" would do in that situation, it is what would another "law enforcement" person reasonably do in that situation. The test of reasonable is not applied to just any layman in that situation it is applied to other law enforcement in a similar set of circumstances based on a variety of factors.

The Idaho case you brought up is drastically different . Lon Horiuchi was an FBI sniper. Horiuchi shot and killed Randy Weaver's wife from a considerable distance while she was standing on a porch, unarmed, holding a infant child. It is very hard to argue a reasonable standard that he (Horiuchi) felt that there was an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm from Mrs Weaver in that scenario when Mrs Weaver had no weapon or delivery system for a weapon. He was just "following orders" by blowing her brains out from quite a distance away.

I brought up earlier in this thread the situation of Michael Byrd killing Ashli Babbitt. Ashli Babbitt had no weapon, her hands were empty (hands usually can hold weapons) she was sticking her head through a window and that window was too small for her to crawl through, and behind her were several other law enforcement officers who could have easily effected an arrest. Byrd shot her in the neck and killed her. Still, in that case because Byrd was a federal officer (USCP) there was no state criminal charge levied against him (Nagle). Babbitt's family received a very large settlement.

Now in this case it can be argued that there is a weapon and delivery system involved. A 4000# vehicle, running, placed in drive (not in park), with a driver at the controls can be a weapon and can be presented as a delivery system coupled with the intent of not following orders and putting the vehicle in motion. There is actually more here than there is in the two examples cited above.

Ask yourself this. If the roles were reversed. If an ICE agent was alone in a vehicle and got surrounded by a group of anti-ICE protesters and that agent put his vehicle in motion and tried to drive away and maybe only injured someone standing in the way, wouldn't all these critics be saying that was akin to "attempted murder" and "he used his vehicle as a weapon"? You better believe they would. A vehicle can be reasonably considered a weapon and that has been demonstrated and affirmed countless times.

For all the people who are recklessly throwing around the charge "murder" they need to educate themselves. A federal murder charge is very specific and only really applies in specific circumstances. Things like killing a federal official, or doing such crime on federal property or military bases, something involving a federal crime like bank robbery, drug trafficking, or killing a kidnapping victim after crossing state lines. It is very limited in scope and does not apply here. State courts usually charge cases involving homicides and if the feds get involved it usually is done via civil rights case. I don't expect novices to know this but I certainly expect law makers in Congress to know that and some of them are being quite reckless with their hyperbole. They are not interested quieting this down. Quite the contrary, they are throwing gas on hot coals. I don't expect people making click-bait internet death porn to be responsible. Most of them are talking out of their @sses but if I can explain this in a couple few paragraphs you'd think the media could. I just made myself laugh....

This was a very regrettable situation. I've said before that many things can be true at the same time. For all the things that people are saying about what a great, loving, caring and wonderful person this victim of the shooting was, I believe them. I take them at their word. I think they are telling the truth. The other truth is that she acted stupidly by putting herself in that situation. They say she was a wonderful mother. You wanna know who else is a wonderful mother? My wife, and even though our kids are all adults I can guarantee you that I would have never ever have had to worry that when our kids were small that she would have taken a day off to drive her vehicle into a stupid protest and put herself into a dangerous situation. Why? Because her number one focus every single day, and even to this day, is an unwavering focus on our children. I actually feel bad for this woman and her surviving family because she was taken down the path she was. That she was put into this situation where she didn't just stand on a sidewalk with a sign and shout, but get in her vehicle and become a kinetic participant. That was stupid.

Everything there is mostly correct. I can’t be bothered to argue anymore. This forum has become full of people who have to defend Trump at every instance and will go to whatever lengths. It’s not you but the other guy.


Byrd wasn’t really relevant to my post because if I’m correct, no state never brought up charges. For the Neagle test to be enacted, states must first bring charges.

[Tyy7777]

Would you care to retract that statement, Counselor?

I’ve posted a clear photo of the officer being to the side at the time of the first shot. And well to the side by the second and third.

[lurker]

---- as he is at least honest and in good faith.

(in other words, I'm not)


Now who is being dishonest and not in good faith?

[lurker]

I’ve posted a clear photo of the officer being to the side at the time of the first shot..

Positioning of the Agent’s Gun at the Shooting in Minneapolis -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9C-ubG6wrQ

Just watch the video so you can for sure SEE that you are wrong.