ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

See, that’s the kind of thing that gets determined in court. That’s how this whole thing works, with laws and stuff.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

That’s not a true.

Besides, there is no statute of limitations. Minnesota said that they will wait out the administration if they need to.

They don’t need to wait until the current administration is gone to file charges. In fact, the hurdles to a successful state prosecution will be higher in 2029 than they are in 2026.

But he would have the right to a speedy trial.

The state can claim they did not have access to evidence until X date.

That comes AFTER indictment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

See, that’s the kind of thing that gets determined in court. That’s how this whole thing works, with laws and stuff.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

That isn't true. The state does have jurisdiction, though there is process by which the US attorney can remove the case to federal court. If the US attorney doesn't Ross can (though it isn't entirely clear what happens to the prosecution if he removes it). But eventually, he will face a jury of his fellow Minnesotans, in state or federal court. It may be 2029, but there is no statute of limitations and Trump cannot pardon him for the state crimes.

He has got to know that the wrath of the entire country is now directed at him.

He represents all of the evil being done in Minnesota, rightfully so or not.

That is so false.
He has a great deal of support because we know what he did was totally justified.
And, we know that some crazy liberal would love to take him out.

[Anonymous]

He will NOT go to trial.
He will NOT be indicted.

You folks can dream on.
This was a justified shooting. Just like that of Michael Brown in Missouri.

It is sad that it happened, but it was justified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

Self defense is an affirmative defense in most places.

+1.


It’s also why he should not, and will not, be put on trial.

To charge him would constitute malicious prosecution and a blatant violation of his civil rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

Self defense is an affirmative defense in most places.

+1.


It’s also why he should not, and will not, be put on trial.

To charge him would constitute malicious prosecution and a blatant violation of his civil rights.

These ICE babies are constantly threatening and hitting people with cars, pushing them out of the way, etc

Bring that same energy when some American defends themselves against an ICE agent.

He’s still going to jail, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He will NOT go to trial.
He will NOT be indicted.

You folks can dream on.
This was a justified shooting. Just like that of Michael Brown in Missouri.

It is sad that it happened, but it was justified.

He can prove it was justified at trial. That's actually how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

See, that’s the kind of thing that gets determined in court. That’s how this whole thing works, with laws and stuff.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

The state absolutely has jurisdiction as murder or manslaughter are not federal crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

then why did he start unholstering his gun long before he even went around to the front of the car?

I don’t know. Maybe….Because she did not comply with multiple lawful orders? Because she almost backed into her wife? Because a car is a deadly weapon and she put it in gear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

then why did he start unholstering his gun long before he even went around to the front of the car?

I don’t know. Maybe….Because she did not comply with multiple lawful orders? Because she almost backed into her wife? Because a car is a deadly weapon and she put it in gear?

Lots of maybes he'll eventually get to explain at trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

His tactics were horrible. But that does not negate the fact that he likely thought his life was in danger because a 4500 lb car was being accelerated towards him when he fired the first shot. Watch the videos frame by frame. Also, he’s not standing 15 feet away like most of the video. He can only hear engine rev, tires spin, and see the car coming direct at him when he chose to act. Perfect defense? No. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably.

then why did he start unholstering his gun long before he even went around to the front of the car?

I don’t know. Maybe….Because she did not comply with multiple lawful orders? Because she almost backed into her wife? Because a car is a deadly weapon and she put it in gear?

So if a car is a deadly weapon, what did he think would happen when he killed the person controlling the car? Killing her made it an even deadlier weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He will NOT go to trial.
He will NOT be indicted.

You folks can dream on.
This was a justified shooting. Just like that of Michael Brown in Missouri.

It is sad that it happened, but it was justified.

He can prove it was justified at trial. That's actually how this works.

If he makes it that far. These guys have a lot of trouble with accountability and he already seems pretty unbalanced. He might end it himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know about any of you here, but if I genuinely felt as if my life were in immediate danger, I would have used BOTH of my hands as protection……I certainly would not have prioritized one hand to hold up a cellphone no matter what.

All that means is he didn’t premeditate or plan to need to discharge his weapon. He was simply walking around the car on the way to the other side when she unexpectedly drove toward him

He switcched the phone from his dominant hand (right-hand) and moved it to his left-hand. HE drew his pistol before she started moving. He was out for blood.

Do you know how often police officers draw their guns? A lot.

Do you? Because I can’t find any statistics on that. Only 27% of police officers have ever fired their gun while on duty, but that’s obviously a different statistic than drawing their gun.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/02/08/a-closer-look-at-police-officers-who-have-fired-their-weapon-on-duty/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

See, that’s the kind of thing that gets determined in court. That’s how this whole thing works, with laws and stuff.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

That’s not a true.

Besides, there is no statute of limitations. Minnesota said that they will wait out the administration if they need to.

They don’t need to wait until the current administration is gone to file charges. In fact, the hurdles to a successful state prosecution will be higher in 2029 than they are in 2026.

But he would have the right to a speedy trial.

The state can claim they did not have access to evidence until X date.

The feds already destroyed the evidence from the crime scene. There’s nothing more to get other than the videos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He will NOT go to trial.
He will NOT be indicted.

You folks can dream on.
This was a justified shooting. Just like that of Michael Brown in Missouri.

It is sad that it happened, but it was justified.

Today's The Daily has a rep from Minneapolis PD on it and breaks down what ICE did wrong here. And to be clear, Ross made MANY breaches of best practices and protocols. So, no, just b/c you are a fascist supporting MAGA doesn't mean the rest of us are going to deny what is in front of our eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reasonable doubt...you people are such clowns.

Yes, a bunch of lay people who are not cops and not lawyers look at videos and read comments and make the judgment THEY WOULD HAVE MADE ANYWAY.

A jury would be told explicitly what they may consider, and would be presented with days worth of evidence.

But this reckless and trigger-happy Ross idiot will likely never see a trial.

Why would he be put on trial? He didn’t break any law.

See, that’s the kind of thing that gets determined in court. That’s how this whole thing works, with laws and stuff.

Well, State lacks jurisdiction and feds will not bring charges or seek indictment.

That isn't true. The state does have jurisdiction, though there is process by which the US attorney can remove the case to federal court. If the US attorney doesn't Ross can (though it isn't entirely clear what happens to the prosecution if he removes it). But eventually, he will face a jury of his fellow Minnesotans, in state or federal court. It may be 2029, but there is no statute of limitations and Trump cannot pardon him for the state crimes.

He has got to know that the wrath of the entire country is now directed at him.

He represents all of the evil being done in Minnesota, rightfully so or not.

That is so false.
He has a great deal of support because we know what he did was totally justified.
And, we know that some crazy liberal would love to take him out.

The 51st state is going to be Delusion, and we can send all of the MAGAs there.