ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

What did this bystander do to "taunt" ICE officers? As far as I know, filming their activities is still legal.

[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.

That’s not how federal officer removal works. The defendant invokes it and then the case moves to federal court, but the state authorities are still the prosecutors. The US Attorney has no role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Threats to his precious feelings don’t count.

[Anonymous]

ICE officers hard at work in Minneapolis harassing citizens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

What did this bystander do to "taunt" ICE officers? As far as I know, filming their activities is still legal.

are you bot defenders going to justify this pathetic behavior. too? You are on the side of the untrained, over-reactive thugs. History will judge you like the Nazis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

She was right about everything.
And to the ppp they WERE NOT ON DUTY. Crusty Noem confirmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

What did this bystander do to "taunt" ICE officers? As far as I know, filming their activities is still legal.

That is awesome. I love this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

What did this bystander do to "taunt" ICE officers? As far as I know, filming their activities is still legal.

The bystander told the thugs that everyone hates them and they completely lost their cool. They also seem to need to move in packs. It’s a lot of people to throw one guy to the ground and arrest him. I guess for not being cowed by their gear and Velcro?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

What did this bystander do to "taunt" ICE officers? As far as I know, filming their activities is still legal.

That is awesome. I love this.

You love watching federal agents pile on citizens? Or do you "love" violence in general?

[Anonymous]

Neither the officer or the dead woman handled this situation well.

I’m surprised this is (I think?) the first time this has happened, & that more of these incidents have not ended up in tragedy, TBH.

Every time a protestor forces these types of conflicts, there is an increased risk of injury or harm (to the protestor, to the officer, and to bystanders).

There are thousands of videos showing protestors physically interfering with these agents (either using their bodies directly, or their vehicles). Along with spitting at officers, throwing objects at officers and/or their vehicles, etc.

They have every right to stand with signs, shout whatever they want at officers from a non-physically interfering distance, blow whistles and make noise- sure.

If I were to go down to my local supermarket or park, and do any of these things (spitting at people, throwing objects at people, physically obstructing vehicles from leaving the parking lot etc), the police would be called (and rightly so).

If someone came to arrest my (lovely and wonderful) neighbor, I’d stand outside and video it probably. But go and block the officer in with my car? Throw things at him or her? No, of course not.

I expect that there will, unfortunately, be more incidents like this one. Resulting in harm to protestors, officers, the “illegals” themselves (which has also already happened as well- some were shot awhile back) or even just bystanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

What did this bystander do to "taunt" ICE officers? As far as I know, filming their activities is still legal.

Filming, fine.

Taunting and saying rude things, fine.

Obstructing the road and refusing to exit the vehicle when told to do so, not fine.

Moving a vehicle when an officer is standing directly in front of it, not fine.

[Anonymous]

We need to open up civil liability for these guys. Make so that if they are reckless or intentional in their acts, they are personally liable. No reimbursements from the government, etc. They are personally on the hook.

Obviously, not everything, people make mistakes but some of this is so over the top that the only way that they stop is if they realize that brutishness will hit them in their personal pocketbook. Not the US Treasury's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Neither the officer or the dead woman handled this situation well.

I’m surprised this is (I think?) the first time this has happened, & that more of these incidents have not ended up in tragedy, TBH.

Every time a protestor forces these types of conflicts, there is an increased risk of injury or harm (to the protestor, to the officer, and to bystanders).

There are thousands of videos showing protestors physically interfering with these agents (either using their bodies directly, or their vehicles). Along with spitting at officers, throwing objects at officers and/or their vehicles, etc.

They have every right to stand with signs, shout whatever they want at officers from a non-physically interfering distance, blow whistles and make noise- sure.

If I were to go down to my local supermarket or park, and do any of these things (spitting at people, throwing objects at people, physically obstructing vehicles from leaving the parking lot etc), the police would be called (and rightly so).

If someone came to arrest my (lovely and wonderful) neighbor, I’d stand outside and video it probably. But go and block the officer in with my car? Throw things at him or her? No, of course not.

I expect that there will, unfortunately, be more incidents like this one. Resulting in harm to protestors, officers, the “illegals” themselves (which has also already happened as well- some were shot awhile back) or even just bystanders.

Agree.

The type of people in MN who are directly, physically, attacking and spitting on police, charging at them with cars and other vehicles, are crazy and beyond reckless.

It’s difficult to have sympathy for them when they bring consequences on themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

She was right about everything.
And to the ppp they WERE NOT ON DUTY. Crusty Noem confirmed.

Yes, they were on duty, as she explained. They had just completed a mission and were enroute to HQ and other missions planned that day. They are considered on duty the entire day, even during transit between missions or to HQ. It wasn’t their day off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We need to open up civil liability for these guys. Make so that if they are reckless or intentional in their acts, they are personally liable. No reimbursements from the government, etc. They are personally on the hook.

Obviously, not everything, people make mistakes but some of this is so over the top that the only way that they stop is if they realize that brutishness will hit them in their personal pocketbook. Not the US Treasury's.

Agree. No way the taxpayer should pay for this insane behavior.

That said, they don’t actually have blanket immunity. They may be unaware of this, but if one gets into legal trouble on the job, the agency has a process to determine whether or not it will defend you. It’s not automatic.

So good that everyone is filming it all. There will be a day of reckoning.