ICE in Minneapolis

[Tyy7777]

SMH —- You crack me up.

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

[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?

[lurker]

Not complying doesn't mean you should be killed.

SMH —- You crack me up.

[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]

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

[lurker]

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

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

[lurker]

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

[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]

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,

[lurker]

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

[Tyy7777]

A federal agent/officer working under federal authority can't be charged in a state court. I believe the case law is the Nagle decision (in re Neagle) and it dates back to 1890.

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.

[Tyy7777]

IMG_0977.jpg This is the exact moment of the first shot.

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

[Tyy7777]

I’ve seen the full video, the perp tried to run over the agent with her SUV. Then she got shot. What’s the big deal about that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiE_chT_Cl4

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5_LsxHr_Eo

Be careful if you keep licking your tongue might stick to the boot.

If you watched the ducking video you'd clearly see that the officer shoots while he is TO THE SIDE OF THE VEHICLE. The woman in the car initially backed up, TURNED HER WHEELS TO THE RIGHT TO DRIVE OUT OF THE WAY.

The officer then KEPT SHOOTING while to the side of the vehicle.

[ss12]

Why So Many Americans Say “She Should’ve Complied” (w/ Ryan Grim) | The Bulwark Podcast

[Morgs153]

A federal agent/officer working under federal authority can't be charged in a state court. I believe the case law is the Nagle decision (in re Neagle) and it dates back to 1890.

Calling this "murder" is very reckless and wrong.

I would just add that for anyone who may have ever thought that Michael Byrd was justified in shooting and killing Ashli Babbitt and then compare that incident to this one, check yourself.