ICE murdered an innocent woman

67mike said:
This video is great.

Very useful.
Her partner was belligerent to the ice agent and most likely got him very agitated.

The ice agent was bumped, for sure. Not enough force to knock him down: which is a key fact.

Also could rause doubt that the driver even realize he had walked over and was in front of her vehicle?
Click to expand...
Not to mention she was literally friendly and smiling at them seconds before being murdered.
 
JDs Couch said:
Not to mention she was literally friendly and smiling at them seconds before being murdered.
Click to expand...
Yeah. This guy smiled a lot too
1767988863404.png
 
Findthetone1 said:
Alt...cute.
I'll ask again as well, what part of the procedure do you think he violated? I have no other intention other that curiosity.
Click to expand...

MadAsAHatter said:
Obstruction of a federal officer.


Edit: I've answered your question. Care to circle back and answer the one posed to you?
Which protocol was the ICE agent circumventing?
Click to expand...

Well I am sure that the Minnesota Prosecuters might start with these:

2025 Minnesota Statutes​

Resources​

Chapter 609​

Section 609.066​

Recent History​

Topics​

609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.​

Subdivision 1.​


For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.

Subd. 1a.​


The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:

(1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law;

(2) as set forth below, it is the intent of the legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life or to prevent great bodily harm. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case;

(3) that the decision by a peace officer to use deadly force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using deadly force; and

(4) that peace officers should exercise special care when interacting with individuals with known physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities as an individual's disability may affect the individual's ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers.

Subd. 2.​


(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).
 
67mike said:
Well I am sure that the Minnesota Prosecuters might start with these:

2025 Minnesota Statutes​

Resources​

Chapter 609​

Section 609.066​

Recent History​

Topics​

609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.​

Subdivision 1.​


For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.

Subd. 1a.​


The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:

(1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law;

(2) as set forth below, it is the intent of the legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life or to prevent great bodily harm. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case;

(3) that the decision by a peace officer to use deadly force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using deadly force; and

(4) that peace officers should exercise special care when interacting with individuals with known physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities as an individual's disability may affect the individual's ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers.

Subd. 2.​


(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).
Click to expand...
Exactly. Ms Good was clearly turning her wheels to avoid the officer who moved into her path. Then he shot her once the vehicle was past him, in no danger to anyone.
 
67mike said:
Well I am sure that the Minnesota Prosecuters might start with these:

2025 Minnesota Statutes​

Resources​

Chapter 609​

Section 609.066​

Recent History​

Topics​

609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.​

Subdivision 1.​


For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.

Subd. 1a.​


The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:

(1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law;

(2) as set forth below, it is the intent of the legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life or to prevent great bodily harm. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case;

(3) that the decision by a peace officer to use deadly force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using deadly force; and

(4) that peace officers should exercise special care when interacting with individuals with known physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities as an individual's disability may affect the individual's ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers.

Subd. 2.​


(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).
Click to expand...
They can start with whatever they want.

Nothing is going to happen without changing the rules of engagement for all police activity in the country.

Nothing is going to happen to the ICE officer.
 
JDs Couch said:
Exactly. Ms Good was clearly turning her wheels to avoid the officer who moved into her path. Then he shot her once the vehicle was past him, in no danger to anyone.
Click to expand...
You are far from a constitutional legal expert.

Your spewing nonsense is only going to make the matter worse.
 
MadAsAHatter said:
Obstruction of a federal officer.


Edit: I've answered your question. Care to circle back and answer the one posed to you?
Which protocol was the ICE agent circumventing?
Click to expand...
There was no obstruction. A vehicle passed her on video just before she was shot.
In any event, obstruction is not punishable by death, is it?
 
Geo said:
You are far from a constitutional legal expert.

Your spewing nonsense is only going to make the matter worse.
Click to expand...
Are you any sort of legal expert?

You probably live in your mom's trailer and might know a trick or to regarding squatters rights, but that doesn't make you an expert.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

watson503
Rob Reiner & Wife Murdered In Their Home
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
2K
JamesTiberiusKirk
JamesTiberiusKirk
psychodave
PA Democrat confesses to intent to murder. Shoots person point blank in the head.
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
5K
Dan Gleesak
Dan Gleesak
nightlight
Limp Bizkit bassist Sam Rivers was murdered
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
311boogieman
311boogieman
skoora
Rob Reiner and the Mrs…R.I.P.
Replies
0
Views
31
skoora
skoora
rsm
Trump grants White South Africans refugee status
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
7K
The Blazing Saddle
The Blazing Saddle
Back
Top