ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[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?

He stepped in front of the cars (against best practice).
The officers did not approach or identify themselves. Again, against best practices.
He fired into a moving vehicle with an unarmed woman. Not once. Not twice. But three times. Which then caused the vehicle to crash. Both the frantic firing and the vehicle moving after the shooting put multiple other people at risk.

He exhibited no cool. No critical thinking. No professionalism. To the contrary, he put himself in a position to escalate the conflict. And then, betraying his real state of mind, cursed her as a F'ing B. That's the telltale moment b/c it shows he had neither the demeanor, composure, professionalism, or positive intent that he defenders are claiming.

[Anonymous]

Here is what will happen.

The US Attorney will decline to indict.

Minnesota will indict. The US Attorney will invoke the federal officer removal statute and will then dismiss the charges. Alternatively, Ross will have it removed.

2029. New president. Ross will be fired. Minnesota will revitalize the murder charges against Ross. Ross will try to remove. But, Mark Meadows already tried this, invoking the statute AFTER your term as a federal officer is over, and was shot down by the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the 11th Circuit decision stand.

Ross will then face charges before a jury of his Minnesota peers and will have an opportunity to present self-defense as an affirmative defense. He will have the burden of proving that defense and convincing a jury of his peers that his actions were proper.

Then he will either walk free or join Derek Chauvin.

[Anonymous]

Ross was an untrained, unserious goon. What respectable police officer wears a mask and films with his iPhone. Amateur. Cosplaying freak.


PS. The correct answer is NO respectable professional police officer does the things Ross did. People defending him are just brainwashed MAGA who don’t know sh*t about f**k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is what will happen.

The US Attorney will decline to indict.

Minnesota will indict. The US Attorney will invoke the federal officer removal statute and will then dismiss the charges. Alternatively, Ross will have it removed.

2029. New president. Ross will be fired. Minnesota will revitalize the murder charges against Ross. Ross will try to remove. But, Mark Meadows already tried this, invoking the statute AFTER your term as a federal officer is over, and was shot down by the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the 11th Circuit decision stand.

Ross will then face charges before a jury of his Minnesota peers and will have an opportunity to present self-defense as an affirmative defense. He will have the burden of proving that defense and convincing a jury of his peers that his actions were proper.

Then he will either walk free or join Derek Chauvin.

The removal to federal court will stand as an available option indefinitely because the activity in question occurred when the actor was a federal officer engaged in federal law enforcement activity. Local authorities cannot obstruct or second guess such federal activity at the time or any time thereafter. It doesn't matter if a new federal administration eventually appears, or whether the officer eventually retires or changes jobs. What matters is what his status was at the time of the incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My guess? Because they were in a volatile and hostile situation and apparently about to detain the driver (“get out of the car”). Not saying that he was correct to do so, but think that this is the most likely explanation.

Completely ridiculous. The situation was neither volatile nor hostile.

Volatile? There was a driver sitting calmly in her car, saying "I'm not mad at you" and her wife, walking towards the passenger side as if to get into it, with a coffee thermos in one hand, sipping.

Hostile? "Go get yourself lunch, big boy" is taunting, not hostile. There is no Constitutional requirement to be "nice" and "subservient" to the feds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ross was an untrained, unserious goon. What respectable police officer wears a mask and films with his iPhone. Amateur. Cosplaying freak.


PS. The correct answer is NO respectable professional police officer does the things Ross did. People defending him are just brainwashed MAGA who don’t know sh*t about f**k.

Actually, he was highly trained and was even a firearms instructor--which makes what he did way worse. Despite all his training, he did a number of things--enumerated elsewhere--that departed from standard practice and training. Below is a description of Ross's training given by him in a court setting.

In courtroom testimony last month, Ross said he deployed to Iraq from 2004 to 2005 with the Indiana National Guard. Ross said he served as a machine gunner on a gun truck as part of a combat patrol team.

He said he returned from Iraq in 2005, went to college and joined the Border Patrol in 2007 near El Paso, Texas. He worked there until 2015, serving as a field intelligence agent gathering and analyzing information on cartels and drug and human smuggling.

Ross said he has served as a deportation officer based in Minnesota since he joined ICE in 2015. He is assigned to fugitive operations, seeking to arrest “higher value targets” in the ICE region that includes Minneapolis, he testified last month. He said that he was also a team leader with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force.

“So I develop the targets, create a target package, surveillance, and then develop a plan to execute the arrest warrant,” he said.

Ross said that he was also a firearms instructor, an active shooter instructor, a field intelligence officer and member of the SWAT team. He said that he attended the Border Patrol’s academy in New Mexico, where he learned to speak Spanish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what will happen.

The US Attorney will decline to indict.

Minnesota will indict. The US Attorney will invoke the federal officer removal statute and will then dismiss the charges. Alternatively, Ross will have it removed.

2029. New president. Ross will be fired. Minnesota will revitalize the murder charges against Ross. Ross will try to remove. But, Mark Meadows already tried this, invoking the statute AFTER your term as a federal officer is over, and was shot down by the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the 11th Circuit decision stand.

Ross will then face charges before a jury of his Minnesota peers and will have an opportunity to present self-defense as an affirmative defense. He will have the burden of proving that defense and convincing a jury of his peers that his actions were proper.

Then he will either walk free or join Derek Chauvin.

The removal to federal court will stand as an available option indefinitely because the activity in question occurred when the actor was a federal officer engaged in federal law enforcement activity. Local authorities cannot obstruct or second guess such federal activity at the time or any time thereafter. It doesn't matter if a new federal administration eventually appears, or whether the officer eventually retires or changes jobs. What matters is what his status was at the time of the incident.

There’s an argument that shooting in that situation does not represent legitimate law enforcement activity, and that jumping out on a lady because she wasn’t parked the way they’d like also wasn’t legitimate law enforcement activity.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone here follow Monkey D. Beans ( @monkeydbeans0 ) on TikTok ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what will happen.

The US Attorney will decline to indict.

Minnesota will indict. The US Attorney will invoke the federal officer removal statute and will then dismiss the charges. Alternatively, Ross will have it removed.

2029. New president. Ross will be fired. Minnesota will revitalize the murder charges against Ross. Ross will try to remove. But, Mark Meadows already tried this, invoking the statute AFTER your term as a federal officer is over, and was shot down by the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the 11th Circuit decision stand.

Ross will then face charges before a jury of his Minnesota peers and will have an opportunity to present self-defense as an affirmative defense. He will have the burden of proving that defense and convincing a jury of his peers that his actions were proper.

Then he will either walk free or join Derek Chauvin.

The removal to federal court will stand as an available option indefinitely because the activity in question occurred when the actor was a federal officer engaged in federal law enforcement activity. Local authorities cannot obstruct or second guess such federal activity at the time or any time thereafter. It doesn't matter if a new federal administration eventually appears, or whether the officer eventually retires or changes jobs. What matters is what his status was at the time of the incident.

Nope. The 11th circuit said this ends when your tenure as an officer ends. Meadows (remember him? Trump's chief of staff?) appealed this to the US Suupreme Court and they declined to hear the appeal. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My guess? Because they were in a volatile and hostile situation and apparently about to detain the driver (“get out of the car”). Not saying that he was correct to do so, but think that this is the most likely explanation.

Completely ridiculous. The situation was neither volatile nor hostile.

Volatile? There was a driver sitting calmly in her car, saying "I'm not mad at you" and her wife, walking towards the passenger side as if to get into it, with a coffee thermos in one hand, sipping.

Hostile? "Go get yourself lunch, big boy" is taunting, not hostile. There is no Constitutional requirement to be "nice" and "subservient" to the feds.

Taunting = hostile, by definition.

Protesters, car in the middle of the street, taunting = volatile.

Agree of course that there is no constitutional requirement to be nice (much less subservient).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what will happen.

The US Attorney will decline to indict.

Minnesota will indict. The US Attorney will invoke the federal officer removal statute and will then dismiss the charges. Alternatively, Ross will have it removed.

2029. New president. Ross will be fired. Minnesota will revitalize the murder charges against Ross. Ross will try to remove. But, Mark Meadows already tried this, invoking the statute AFTER your term as a federal officer is over, and was shot down by the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the 11th Circuit decision stand.

Ross will then face charges before a jury of his Minnesota peers and will have an opportunity to present self-defense as an affirmative defense. He will have the burden of proving that defense and convincing a jury of his peers that his actions were proper.

Then he will either walk free or join Derek Chauvin.

The removal to federal court will stand as an available option indefinitely because the activity in question occurred when the actor was a federal officer engaged in federal law enforcement activity. Local authorities cannot obstruct or second guess such federal activity at the time or any time thereafter. It doesn't matter if a new federal administration eventually appears, or whether the officer eventually retires or changes jobs. What matters is what his status was at the time of the incident.

There’s an argument that shooting in that situation does not represent legitimate law enforcement activity, and that jumping out on a lady because she wasn’t parked the way they’d like also wasn’t legitimate law enforcement activity.

It was legitimate. They were on duty, moving as a convoy- many vehicles and personal. Not only was she clogging the road and obstructing traffic, her vehicle being perpendicular in the road (and taunting/harassing) presents a safety and security risk for their convoy to
pass. It was completely appropriate and legitimate for them to tell her to move and arrest her when she wouldn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what will happen.

The US Attorney will decline to indict.

Minnesota will indict. The US Attorney will invoke the federal officer removal statute and will then dismiss the charges. Alternatively, Ross will have it removed.

2029. New president. Ross will be fired. Minnesota will revitalize the murder charges against Ross. Ross will try to remove. But, Mark Meadows already tried this, invoking the statute AFTER your term as a federal officer is over, and was shot down by the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the 11th Circuit decision stand.

Ross will then face charges before a jury of his Minnesota peers and will have an opportunity to present self-defense as an affirmative defense. He will have the burden of proving that defense and convincing a jury of his peers that his actions were proper.

Then he will either walk free or join Derek Chauvin.

The removal to federal court will stand as an available option indefinitely because the activity in question occurred when the actor was a federal officer engaged in federal law enforcement activity. Local authorities cannot obstruct or second guess such federal activity at the time or any time thereafter. It doesn't matter if a new federal administration eventually appears, or whether the officer eventually retires or changes jobs. What matters is what his status was at the time of the incident.

Nope. The 11th circuit said this ends when your tenure as an officer ends. Meadows (remember him? Trump's chief of staff?) appealed this to the US Suupreme Court and they declined to hear the appeal. Sorry.

And just to be clear, here is the language from the 11th Circuit opinion.

"We divide our discussion in two parts. First, we explain that
section 1442(a)(1) does not apply to former officers—so Meadows,
as a former chief of staff, is not a federal “officer” within the meaning of the removal statute."

Ross, after he is terminated, will not be a federal officer. Thus, the statute will not apply.

[Anonymous]

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.

Walz is still the governor and commands the MN attorney generals office. The mayor commands the city prosecutor’s office.

Charge him already if you think there’s a case.

Put up, or STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is what will happen.

The US Attorney will decline to indict.

Minnesota will indict. The US Attorney will invoke the federal officer removal statute and will then dismiss the charges. Alternatively, Ross will have it removed.

2029. New president. Ross will be fired. Minnesota will revitalize the murder charges against Ross. Ross will try to remove. But, Mark Meadows already tried this, invoking the statute AFTER your term as a federal officer is over, and was shot down by the 11th Circuit and the US Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the 11th Circuit decision stand.

Ross will then face charges before a jury of his Minnesota peers and will have an opportunity to present self-defense as an affirmative defense. He will have the burden of proving that defense and convincing a jury of his peers that his actions were proper.

Then he will either walk free or join Derek Chauvin.

The removal to federal court will stand as an available option indefinitely because the activity in question occurred when the actor was a federal officer engaged in federal law enforcement activity. Local authorities cannot obstruct or second guess such federal activity at the time or any time thereafter. It doesn't matter if a new federal administration eventually appears, or whether the officer eventually retires or changes jobs. What matters is what his status was at the time of the incident.

There’s an argument that shooting in that situation does not represent legitimate law enforcement activity, and that jumping out on a lady because she wasn’t parked the way they’d like also wasn’t legitimate law enforcement activity.

It was legitimate. They were on duty, moving as a convoy- many vehicles and personal. Not only was she clogging the road and obstructing traffic, her vehicle being perpendicular in the road (and taunting/harassing) presents a safety and security risk for their convoy to
pass. It was completely appropriate and legitimate for them to tell her to move and arrest her when she wouldn’t.

To their convoy?

Lmao

"Donald Trump intends to use the United States military against American citizens who simply disagree with him."

-Kamala Harris

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ross was an untrained, unserious goon. What respectable police officer wears a mask and films with his iPhone. Amateur. Cosplaying freak.


PS. The correct answer is NO respectable professional police officer does the things Ross did. People defending him are just brainwashed MAGA who don’t know sh*t about f**k.

He has extensive training and used it perfectly. He eliminated the threat with zero collateral damage. Next.