When visiting Shrewd'm with a laptop, it can be pleasant to hold Command (or Ctrl with Windows) and '+' a few times. The site scales to allow any font size, and the larger font can be pleasant to read even for Shrewds with perfect sight! For luxury Shrewdness, you can combine that with setting the browser to full screen. You'll then find yourself Shrewding a lot.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A)
No. of Recommendations: 10
Somewhere in the discussion of the Minneapolis ICE shooting, I suggested the regime could simply declare that, as Federal officers, ICE agents are immune from prosecution by state and local officials.
Well, here we are.
JD Vance Says ICE Agent Has ‘Absolute Immunity’ After Minneapolis Shooting
In response to a question about Minnesota being "cut off" from the federal investigation into the shooting, Vance said: "The precedent here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That's a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job," he told reporters. "The idea that Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals are going to go after and make this guy's life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous."https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-minneapolis-ice-...So, ICE takes another step closer to being the SA. They are specifically seeking to recruit goobers and gun nuts. The FBI is locking state and local authorities out of investigations. The regime says the agents are immune to accountability for their actions by state and local authorities.
I'm sure there will never be any abusive actions by ICE agents, in spite of the fact they are being told they will not be held accountable.
/sarcasm
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 1
That guy is protected by absolute immunity.
I don't think this is right.
That is not what I was taught at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
More like this:
Federal law enforcement personnel do not have absolute immunity for their actions; their legal protections are qualified and situational [1, 2, 3]. They can be sued for constitutional violations and prosecuted for criminal acts, although certain doctrines limit liability in civil cases [1, 3].
Qualified Immunity
The primary protection in civil lawsuits is qualified immunity, which protects government officials from liability in civil lawsuits unless their conduct violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known" [2]. This means agents are generally immune if the law was not already settled to show that their specific actions were unconstitutional [2]. This doctrine often shields officers from being held personally liable for discretionary functions performed in the course of their duties [2].
Exceptions to Immunity
Despite qualified immunity, agents can be held accountable in several ways:
Constitutional Violations: They can be sued under Bivens actions for certain violations of constitutional rights (though the Supreme Court has made this increasingly difficult to pursue in some contexts) [3].
Criminal Prosecution: Law enforcement personnel are not immune from criminal prosecution. They can be charged with federal or state crimes if their actions violate criminal statutes, such as excessive force, corruption, or other unlawful conduct [3].
Agency Accountability: Agencies have internal disciplinary processes, and agents can face job termination or other administrative penalties for misconduct [3].
Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA): The government itself can be sued under the FTCA for certain state-law torts committed by federal employees acting within the scope of their employment (e.g., negligence in a vehicle accident) [3].
In summary, while the qualified immunity doctrine provides significant protection against civil liability, it is not absolute and does not prevent criminal prosecution or administrative action
When I was a federal LEO, some of my co-workers were buying liability insurance as an added layer of protection.
No. of Recommendations: 2
It is extremely unlikely that ice agents have absolute immunity for alleged crimes committed while working under color of federal law.
Most likely some form of qualified immunity is applicable.
As to whether or not the ice agent might be subject to prosecution I'm state court under a state law criminal statute, that depends on what federal law and federal court precedents have to say about the particular fact pattern at issue
No. of Recommendations: 3
Most likely some form of qualified immunity is applicable.
Federal agents have qualified immunity.
At any rate, what crime was committed here? Other than Good interfering with federal officers and using her vehicle to assault one of them?
No. of Recommendations: 2
I'm not dying a crime was committed.
However it's possible a jury issue exists as to whether or not the second and third shots fired were reasonable actions even if it's conceded the first one was reasonable.
Maybe something like reckless endangerment or criminally negligent homicide or violation of civil rights
But a the leftie looks here are calling it cold blooded murder.
No. of Recommendations: 1
However it's possible a jury issue exists as to whether or not the second and third shots fired were reasonable actions even if it's conceded the first one was reasonable.
Maybe something like reckless endangerment or criminally negligent homicide or violation of civil rights
But a the leftie looks here are calling it cold blooded murder.
A left wing civil jury will inevitably find for Good's family when the "wife" sues (there's been no indication that I've seen that she's actually married).
Good luck to the left on the criminal case. Good put herself in that situation and all the video shows she's the one who
-Obstructed officers in the first place
-Refused lawful orders to exit her vehicle
-Put the car in gear and tried to flee
-Put numerous officers in physical danger.
As I said, she earned her fate. I get that the left is howling for blood but cray-cray gonna cray-cray. They spun up their AWFLs to the point where they all think they're invincible. Welp...they're not.
No. of Recommendations: 1
That is not what I was taught at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.There is no law. No Congress. No courts. God on Earth Trump says he is all powerful. If he says Federal officers are as immune as he is, they are free to do as they wish.
****breaking news*****
Tucker Carleson has become "unreliable". First he broke with "Israel First". Now this.
Tucker Carlson Asks Why Conservatives Can’t View Renee Good Shooting Through ‘Human Lens’: ‘A Woman Got Shot in the Face’
“The 37-year-old was an American citizen and reportedly the mother of a kindergarten-aged child. Did we disagree with her views on immigration? Probably. But that shouldn’t matter,” Carlson’s newsletter reads. “Her death is a tragedy, regardless of her partisan affiliations, ideological beliefs, or who pulled the trigger. A woman was shot in the face.”
Carlson accused American leaders of “normalizing bloodshed” around the globe, citing authorities capturing Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and the wars between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas.
“America’s leaders must stop normalizing bloodshed,” the post reads. “That means pulling the plug on ethnic cleansing, viewing war as the last option rather than the first, and please, for the love of God, no more Lindsey Graham frothing over the titillating excitement of KILLING PEOPLE.”https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/tucker-carlson...Even Tom Homan is getting squeamish at the right's rush to whitewash the shooting.
Tom Homan Wants No Part of Kristi Noem’s Conclusion About ICE Shooting: ‘Let the Investigation Play Out’
“The investigation has just started,” said Homan after CBS Evening News host Tony Dokoupil asked the border czar to respond to a video of the shooting. “I’m not gonna make a judgment call on one video when there’s a hundred videos out there. I wasn’t on the scene, I’m not an officer that may have bodycam video. It’d be unprofessional to comment on what I think happened in that situation. Let the investigation play out and hold people accountable based on the investigation.”https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/tom-homan-wants-...Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
In response to a question about Minnesota being "cut off" from the federal investigation into the shooting, Vance said: "The precedent here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That's a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job," he told reporters. "The idea that Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals are going to go after and make this guy's life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous."
Naah, this has come up before. The Feds have a qualified immunity: Nefster
"Federal qualified immunity is a legal principle shielding government officials, including federal law enforcement, from civil lawsuits for constitutional rights violations unless their actions violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights" that a reasonable person would have known about."
It's not an absolute immunity, so Vance is out to lunch, but it makes a good soundbite. An ICE agent doesn't have absolute immunity.
.
No. of Recommendations: 3
And here's
Minnesota state law on officers using deadly force:
https://youtu.be/Y04ndAPynMk?t=361Minnesota prosecutors are going to have a hard time getting away from that.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Minnesota prosecutors are going to have a hard time getting away from that.
I don't think they would try. If there's going to be a prosecution, it would be grounded on a determination that an objectively reasonable officer would have determined that deadly force was not necessary to prevent great bodily harm to the officer (or another).
The argument is that a reasonable officer in that scenario would have known that the woman was simply driving away and not trying to run him (or anyone else) over, and neither he nor anyone else would have been injured if she had been allowed to drive away unimpeded. Whether you believe that argument or not, that would be what the prosecution would be trying to establish.
No. of Recommendations: 2
If there's going to be a prosecution, it would be grounded on a determination that an objectively reasonable officer would have determined that deadly force was not necessary to prevent great bodily harm to the officer (or another).
The argument is that a reasonable officer in that scenario would have known that the woman was simply driving away and not trying to run him (or anyone else) over, and neither he nor anyone else would have been injured if she had been allowed to drive away unimpeded. Whether you believe that argument or not, that would be what the prosecution would be trying to establish.
William Kirk (whose channel you probably would like because he geeks out on the law and legal findings - his words) brought that up: He observes that if this had been some officer who was 30 yards away taking the shot that officer might have a problem. It gets considerably murkier when the officer in question is a few inches away.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Looks like more video dropped, this time from the officer who was right in front of the car. Seems like she hit him.
No. of Recommendations: 1
That is not what I was taught at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
What is the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center?
U.S.'s premier training facility for federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement, operated by the Department of Homeland Security
Well…. There ya go. Kristi Noem is in charge. ICE Barbie has a new and improved curriculum.
No. of Recommendations: 9
It gets considerably murkier when the officer in question is a few inches away.
Sure. But prosecutors wouldn't deal with that "murkiness" by trying to get away from the statute. They would instead have to establish that the officer wasn't in the path of the vehicle. The mere act of starting a vehicle in motion from a full stop won't put anyone's life in danger unless that person is in the path of the car. If he was in the path of the car when he fired the fatal shot, he might have a good defense; if he wasn't, it becomes more plausible that a prosecution would be appropriate.
Speculation about a MN prosecution is based on the video evidence which suggests that the officer who fired was not directly in front of the car at the time he fired, but instead slightly off to the side. As you might imagine, that speculation is heightened by the Administration's apparent determination not to allow local authorities to also participate in the investigation - which of course is going to get everyone's conspiracy theory antenna going just as much as a Democratic FBI icing out a red state police department would stir up the same among conservatives.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The officer doesn't have to be directly in the path of the vehicle for the vehicle to reasonably be perceived by the officer under all the facts and circumstances to pose a threat of death or serious physical injury to that officer or other third persons (such as for example the second officer who was in actual physical contact with the vehicle from the driver's door side).
The video from the officer's perspective shows the SUV either striking him directly or coming close enough to him to cause him to fall over because she refused to follow instructions and stop and get out of the vehicle.
Making the officer lose his balance and fall down, potentially under the wheels, with all or a portion of his body, is enough to at least cause a tryable reasonable doubt issue.
The real issue in the case isn't going to be the first gunshot, which was clearly justified.
It's going to be whether the second and/or third gunshots when the officer appeared to be clear of the vehicle, were justified legally. And it will also require a determination of whether she was instantly killed by the first shot or whether the second or third shots 1) struck her and 2) contributed to her death.
No. of Recommendations: 10
"If he was in the path of the car when he fired the fatal shot, he might have a good defense; if he wasn't, it becomes more plausible that a prosecution would be appropriate."
Numerous police officers have chimed in on social media, stating that the ICE gunman violated numerous 'rules' a properly trained police officer is taught.
One such bit considers the fact that, in a contest between man and car, the outcome will always favor the car
As such, LEOs are taught to NOT place themselves in the path of a maneuvering vehicle and to not shoot at a moving vehicle.
Other such articles state that the ICE gunman had a previous altercation with a moving vehicle, allowing himself to be dragged, necessitating stitches.
It takes a special kind of stupid to take on a car with ones body a 2nd time expecting a different outcome. Shooting the driver is not an acceptable solution to equalizing the car/LEO-body equation.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Shooting the driver is not an acceptable solution to equalizing the car/LEO-body equation.
You miss the point. She was a 'fucking bitch'. Case closed.
You think this guy might be a misogynist?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Sano again raises straw men.
If the issue is whether or not LEO Ross violated ICE policy or procedure concerning appropriate use of firearms, and it turns out he did not, his employer (ICE) has the prerogative to impose some form of disciplinary action perhaps up to and including termination and loss of benefits.
That's fine, feel free to argue about that all day long if you please.
But that's not the same issue as whether or not the LEO's conduct was criminal.
Which issue are you actually trying to discuss?
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, you miss the point.
She was at a minimum a reckless or negligent driver who refused to stop her vehicle when an LEO was standing directly in front of it or near enough to be obviously at risk if she continued to drive it.
Those are facts.
I know you don't like facts.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Other such articles state that the ICE gunman had a previous altercation with a moving vehicle, allowing himself to be dragged, necessitating stitches.
Being dragged is a hazard of police work. Several Detroit area officers have been dragged in recent years. One Michigan State Trooper was dragged to death, in a freak accident: he was riding his motorcycle, and, somehow, because entangled in a trailer being pulled by another vehicle. He was dragged over four miles, and died of his injuries. In this case, the driver was acquitted as he had not intended to injure the officer, but was simply unaware that the officer had become entangled with his trailer.
But, in the Minneapolis case, it seemed the media was using the officer's previous dragging incident as an excuse for him being quick to shoot.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
As such, LEOs are taught to NOT place themselves in the path of a maneuvering vehicle and to not shoot at a moving vehicle.
Which makes enormous sense. Haven't seen the video, but this is just basic physics. If you shoot the driver of a moving vehicle, it almost certainly will keep moving. If you're standing in front of it, you'll get run over. Get out of the bleepin' way. Even if you somehow manage to shoot out the engine, the vehicle still won't suddenly stop.
As an aside, and this may be way out of date now, but it is my understanding that you do not have to answer any questions, nor get out of the vehicle unless you're being detained/arrested (in which case they have to inform you of that before ordering you out of the vehicle). You still don't have to answer questions, but I believe you do have to exit the vehicle if the LEO informs you he/she is placing you under arrest.
I learned that decades ago. May be out of date. I have had very little interaction with LEOs in my life, fortunately.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You think this guy might be a misogynist?
I suspect this might be a case of “contempt of cop”. Ms. Good was not doing exactly what the cops (ICE or CBP) wanted. She needed to be absolutely and completely and instantly submissive to what these cops wanted - to the point of reading their minds if necessary because their shouted commands may have been conflicting or unintelligible.
This is a cop problem and not a citizen problem. Some cops can get drunk on their police powers and derive pleasure from exercising those powers. When a person denies them this pleasure, the cop can sometimes use excessive force to get revenge for failing to provide their dopamine hit from the use of power. Good departments are constantly screening and watching for this. I suspect ICE is not a good department in this area.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 2
I suspect ICE is not a good department in this area.
Trump/Fox offered the right wing the cruelty, racism, misogynist policies and behaviors that turn them on.
The Trump/Fox admin has no qualms about lying, cheating, stealing, dehmanizing, torturing, falsely imprisoning, inflicting pain and misery on humans.
No American President and his administration have relished the murder, pain and torture of human beings as openly as the Fox/Trump admin, hiring the worst of the worst to do their bidding.
if there was a God they'd be in deep shit. GOP christianity is a farce.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Wow Sano,
Your paranoid schizophrenia is really acting up today.
You haven't taken your meds yet have you?
Remember to have a glass of milk or eat some protein with it, as always.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Fox/Trump admin
That's a good moniker for this corrupt government we now have. We have the Joseph Goebbels consortium of right wing propagandists in league with the most corrupt and immoral POTUS and administration the country has ever suffered under.
All supported by the easily manipulated MAGA crowd.
No. of Recommendations: 0
No American President and his administration have relished the murder, pain and torture of human beings as openly as the Fox/Trump admin, hiring the worst of the worst to do their bidding.
Bush 43.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
Did Heather Cox Richardson tell you to say that?
Or perhaps was it Timothy Snyder?
LOL.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Bush 43.
Steve
Not even close. He did not stand in front of the nation and encourage his cult and LEOs to beat people, shoot protestors, or boast that he could shoot people in the middle of NYC and not lose a single vote.
Trump is encouraging Gestapo tactics and cruelty against Americans in America.
Would you be surprised if he orders the military into a ground war in South America or the Middle east so he could convince his supporters that "don't change horses mid-stream" is the only rational decision?
No. of Recommendations: 0
Not even close. He did not stand in front of the nation and encourage his cult and LEOs to beat people, shoot protestors, or boast that he could shoot people in the middle of NYC and not lose a single vote.
43 bragged about grabbing people off the street and tossing them in prison with no legal due process. He presided over a regime that insisted torture was proper and necessary.
Trump benefits from Shinyland having spent another 20 years going down the road of violent, authoritarianism.
Steve
