It is about as difficult to sink a business without debt as it is to sink a ship without holes.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 20
Renee Good Autopsy Results Released by Lawyers
One of the gunshots struck Good on the left forearm, causing soft tissue hemorrhage, and another entered her right breast without penetrating any major organs, according to the preliminary findings of the autopsy described by the lawyers.
Neither of those wounds were immediately life-threatening, the autopsy said.
A third bullet entered the left side of her head near the temple and exited on the right side of her head, the autopsy said.
Good also sustained a graze wound that was “consistent with a firearm injury, but with no penetration.”https://www.newsweek.com/renee-good-autopsy-result...Clearly, the people who worked up this autopsy are Commie terrorists, because their work indicates the fatal shot hit the left side of her head, and exited on the right side, meaning it was fired from beside the car, when the officer was in no danger.
The official, County autopsy has not been released yet. If it says the same thing, then, clearly, the county Coroner's office is a nest of Commie terrorists too. The FBI may grab the report before it is released publicly, so We The People are not confused by it.
Even if it is murder, the officer is home free.
DHS shares Stephen Miller clip telling ICE they have 'federal immunity'
The clip posted Tuesday, which is transcribed in the tweet, only includes Miller saying: "To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony. You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one — no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist — can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. The Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice."
Last week during a White House briefing after the shooting of Renee Good, Vice President J.D. Vance claimed that ICE officer Jonathan Ross couldn't face charges for the shooting because he was protected by "absolute immunity."
Most legal experts agree that Vance's claims are bogus. Absolute immunity typically only offers protection for lawmakers, judges, and prosecutors – not law enforcement.
However, Vance was right that it would likely be difficult for local authorities to bring a case against Ross. That's because of what's known as the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution.https://www.fox9.com/news/trump-adviser-stephen-mi...Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
Supremacy clause is irrelevant. State murder charges will stick--no federal forgiveness.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Supremacy clause is irrelevant. State murder charges will stick--no federal forgiveness.
For the sake of discussion, apparently, Ross has been living in the metro Minneapolis area. What if the Feds fly him to his previous station, in El Paso, "for his own protection from Commie terrorist mobs" and Texas authorities refuse to extradite him to Minnesota?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 7
no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist — can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties.
Good to see him summoning his full authority as a political advisor to clarify that the president's absolute immunity extends to all ICE agents - prosecutors and judges, take notice of this little-known fact!
their work indicates the fatal shot hit the left side of her head, and exited on the right side, meaning it was fired from beside the car, when the officer was in no danger.
Our board-resident crime scene investigation professional has already convincingly alleged that when a car turns right there is continued mortal danger to any LEO standing to its left (known as the dreaded "surprise flank kick out"), so surely, any shots fired through the side window were fully-justified last resort self-defense. Especially if the LEO considers the individual a "f... bitch".
No. of Recommendations: 0
What if the Feds fly him to his previous station, in El Paso, "for his own protection from Commie terrorist mobs" and Texas authorities refuse to extradite him to Minnesota?
Feds can't stop a bounty hunter. They want ONE thing--MONEY. Ross will be in MN post haste--just maybe NOT of his own volition.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Supremacy clause is irrelevant. State murder charges will stick--no federal forgiveness.
No, it's different. The difference is why many states don't want local officers assisting ICE officers. Marco and Dope will insist there is no difference or trivialize it, so they can criticize states for not cooperating. But why should a state expose its officers to liability when they don't have to? What are the odds on Trump agreeing to indemnify a blue state?
SNIP
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officers and local police both generally enjoyqualified immunity—a legal doctrine protecting government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations (like excessive force) unless they violated "clearly established" rights.
However, ICE officers, as federal agents, possess additional layers of protection—often referred to as federal immunity—that make them much harder to hold accountable than local police.
Here is the breakdown of the specific protections ICE officers have that local officers generally do not:
1. The Supremacy Clause and Federal Removal
What it is: Under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, states cannot interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce
federal law.
The Difference: If a local officer commits a crime (e.g., assault or manslaughter), they are prosecuted in local or state court. If an
ICE agent commits a crime while on duty, federal law allows them to move the case from state to federal court (removal).
The Impact: Once in federal court, the case is handled by federal prosecutors, who may be less likely to pursue charges against their own
agents, essentially shielding them from state-level accountability.
2. Heightened Difficulty of Civil Suits (Bivens vs. 1983)
Local Police: Individuals can sue local officers under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for civil rights violations.
ICE Officers: There is no equivalent statute for federal agents. Instead, lawsuits must be brought under a Bivens action (named after a
1971 Supreme Court case), which the Supreme Court has significantly narrowed over the years, making it far more difficult
to sue federal agents for constitutional violations than local police.
3. Federal Representation and Indemnification
Defense: When sued, ICE agents are defended by the Department of Justice (DOJ).
Judgment:If a judgment is reached against them, the federal government almost always pays (indemnifies), whereas a local officer might
face personal financial ruin in rare, egregious cases.
4. Limited State Authority to Arrest
The Difference: Local law enforcement cannot legally stop or arrest ICE officers for performing federal duties.
The Exception: While local police have a duty to intervene if they witness excessive force, they cannot interfere with or block an ICE
agent's lawful, or even reasonably perceived lawful, enforcement actions.
Summary of Differences
Feature...................Local Police.................ICE Officers (Federal)
Prosecution............State/Local Court............Federal Court (often)
Lawsuits.................42 U.S.C. § 1983 (easier)....Bivens action (harder)
Liability Defense.....Qualified Immunity...........Qualified Immunity + Supremacy Clause
Immunity Type..........Qualified....................Qualified + Practical Immunity
Note on "Absolute Immunity": While some officials have claimed ICE officers have "absolute immunity," experts clarify that this is not technically true in a legal sense—they do not have blanket permission to break the law. Instead, they enjoy a combination of qualified immunity and strong jurisdictional protections (supremacy clause) that make them effectively immune from local, state-level scrutiny. SNIP
No. of Recommendations: 1
federal law allows them to move the case from state to federal court
And, if it's a Federal case, could Trump the Magnificent and Perfect, then pardon them?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 0
And, if it's a Federal case, could Trump the Magnificent and Perfect, then pardon them?
Federal crime = Spankee can pardon.
Unfortunately, when charged under STATE law, state law still prevails--regardless of court.
No. of Recommendations: 2
And, if it's a Federal case, could Trump the Magnificent and Perfect, then pardon them?
No it's in Federal Court bit they use state law. :) Sounds screwy? Happens regularly. There are advantages and disadvantages to this tactic, but in this case it introduces delay, and if it's a Trump judge, higher chance of immunity.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No it's in Federal Court bit they use state law. :) Sounds screwy? Happens regularly. God's Gift To Us All, Trump, even says he has authority to pardon people convicted on state crimes.
Trump says he’s just pardoning Tina Peters, convicted in state court
“Tina is sitting in a Colorado prison for the ‘crime’ of demanding Honest Elections,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social. “Today I am granting Tina a full Pardon for her attempts to expose Voter Fraud in the Rigged 2020 Presidential Election!”https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/564593...As we know, anyone who mentions "law" or "Constitution" around Trump the God, suffers retribution.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
As we know, anyone who mentions "law" or "Constitution" around Trump the God, suffers retribution.
Let's see if Trump can turn some screws and get her out eh? :)
