2 hours ago, Talkingbirds said:

Don’t know if this was posted already.

"Fox News has learned from multiple ICE sources that none of the agents involved in the shooting in Minneapolis were wearing body cameras at the time of the incident.”

Wouldn't surprise me if most of them don't have body cams with the amount of illegal acts they do

Increasing the pool of potential rioters

3 minutes ago, Kz! said:

No one works harder than JD Vance!

28 minutes ago, Bill said:

I think if there was a prosecutable offense, it would be manslaughter, but even then it would be tricky.

I'm not sure what relevant federal statutes there are and what the elements of those statutes would be, since I only dealt with and cared about PA's crime code, but using the latter as a frame of reference.

Manslaughter is what I’m thinking

How many dead J6’ers would there have been if Capitol police would have dumped 3 shots into every protester that crossed the outside perimeter of barricades?

Capitol police would have just been trying to do their jobs, amirite?

Maybe next time, probably.

49 minutes ago, Bill said:

Policy =/= law.

Policies exits so that people’s rights are not infringed upon thus making policy directly tied to law. In this case, by using force to prevent this person from leaving lawfully (she had not committed a crime, been detained, or under any investigation), they violated her 4th amendment rights protecting her from illegal seizure.

Read though this, it’s an open Supreme Court case that has some similarities in that this person was shot dead because their car was moving and the cop felt threatened. The Supreme Court has already made unanimous decision that the use of force because the cop felt threatened in that precise moment is wrong. They have to look at the totality of circumstances and in this case the person didn’t show any signs of resisting or attempting to flee. They were cooperating with the stop entirely. It would surely be used as a precedent in this new Minnesota case that’s will inevitably take place.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11336

38 minutes ago, Mike030270 said:

Wouldn't surprise me if most of them don't have body cams with the amount of illegal acts they do

They don’t wear body cams but I saw some with GoPro devices that were supposedly agency issued. Conveniently they a delete and edit video since it doesn’t go to a server it’s just on a neat little SD card .

14 hours ago, Captain F said:

She put herself in a bad spot from the get go. I don't understand how people think they have the right to interfere with federal police just bc they dont agree with a policy?? I'm sure that woman was not planning on dying today. I'm sure that officer wasn't planning on having to shoot someone today. Had she stayed home or protested peacefully she would not have put herself in that predicament. She made a poor choice and paid the ultimate price for it.

Some people don't like fascism, so they stand up to it. I know that's hard for fascists to understand but that's the simple truth of it.

I have no doubt that ICE officer was itching to shoot someone every day.

47 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Increasing the pool of potential rioters

The wild part is they only did this because federal patriots raided a high school yesterday and pepper sprayed their students! It's in the Constitution, liberals! State agents are allowed to randomly attack teenagers whenever they want and for whatever reason! Read it! As an independent conservative I always keep a copy in my pocket! I'll let you borrow it!

So you can't shoot the person attempting to leave if you can get out of the way. Deadly force is not authorized if you can get out of the way.

Also, Ice refused a physician to render aid, just letting her die.

52 minutes ago, The_Omega said:

Increasing the pool of potential rioters

This is a good call. Armed fascists looking for an excuse to shoot someone are on the streets.

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

ntentionally interfered with armed federal agents and then rapidly accelerated toward one when she was being apprehended.

The sheer amount of mental retardation on display here is off the charts.

2 hours ago, DBW said:

There’s no debating anything. This is not acceptable use of force. This is from the DOJ website specifically regarding ICE agents. They are not to shoot for the sole purpose of keeping someone from fleeing and they can’t even shoot the tires of a vehicle.

This.!!!

Firearms may never be used if it's objectively reasonable the Pig could move out of the way, which is exactly what he did and fired his weapon in violation of the law.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html

Video is free to view

40 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Manslaughter is what I’m thinking

1st degree murder

Domestic Terrorism

Violating Renee Good's civil rights

Slamming kids to the ground and using chemicals against them. It's unfortunate the citizens can't defend themselves.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/ice-vehicle-hits-protester-in-minneapolis/2025/12/12/2f39945a-3425-4250-98af-6d78088ddef9_video.html

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DSLNmsnkU4e/?igsh=MXU0bWozZzl5c29pYg==

Hmmm......

1 hour ago, Bill said:

When he discharged his first round, the vehicle was moving towards him. Once that decision is made your brain goes into autopilot. Even with firing three rounds, he still discharged less than the modern average per officer per incident round count.

Were there fifty million other things he could have done? You betcha. Do any of those fifty million things make this definitively not a legal use of force? Absolutely not.

It's shaky as F in the first place, but its leaning more towards legal than illegal.

Glad you're not a lawyer, cause you be pretty terrible at it.

1 hour ago, Bill said:

This, IMO, is the problem.

100%.

39 minutes ago, DBW said:

Policies exits so that people’s rights are not infringed upon thus making policy directly tied to law. In this case, by using force to prevent this person from leaving lawfully (she had not committed a crime, been detained, or under any investigation), they violated her 4th amendment rights protecting her from illegal seizure.

Read though this, it’s an open Supreme Court case that has some similarities in that this person was shot dead because their car was moving and the cop felt threatened. The Supreme Court has already made unanimous decision that the use of force because the cop felt threatened in that precise moment is wrong. They have to look at the totality of circumstances and in this case the person didn’t show any signs of resisting or attempting to flee. They were cooperating with the stop entirely. It would surely be used as a precedent in this new Minnesota case that’s will inevitably take place.

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11336

No, policy is not directly tied into law like you say it is. Your read of it is a fanciful one not based in fact. There's a multitude of reasons that a policy exists. More oft than not they're to keep the agency from getting sued.

The case you cited is, from a tactical standpoint, completely different than what has happened with this incident. Again, your read of the case you cited as applicable to here is fanciful.