Minnesota could prosecute the ICE shooter. Trump can’t pardon him.
2d 19h ago by lemmy.world/u/MicroWave in politics from slate.com
Shortly after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, city leaders began looking into whether the officer had violated state criminal law.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said, “We collectively are going to do everything possible to get to the bottom of this, to get justice, and to make sure that there is an investigation that is conducted in full.” Police Chief Brian O’Hara followed up by saying that the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is “investigat[ing] whether any state laws within the state of Minnesota have been violated.”
If they conclude that state law has been violated, the question is: What next? Contrary to recent assertions from some federal officials, states can prosecute federal officers for violating state criminal laws, and there is precedent for that.
"could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
It's the same jurisdiction that put 4 cops in jail for murdering George Floyd. There's a good chance that AG Keith Ellison is looking into it
Don't you dare give me hope!
"Rebellions are built on hope."
That feels good to read.
Oh sorry, won't happen again! We're all fucked.
Three of the four officers are already out of prison.
And the one whose knee was actually on him was sentenced to 22.5 years
They misspelled "should"
Just said the same thing before reading your comment.
Glad there is like minded gooners.
Wake me up when it's "will".
Real talk! c should equal sh
I shannot see the benefit of that.
Even in the bizarro world where an arrest warrant or indictment is issued, ICE will close ranks around their brother who just got a notch on his belt. No state cops are gonna slug it out with the feds to make that arrest.
Although you're probably right, part of me really hopes that's why Walz put the national guard on standby
That's the stated reason that Walz put the national guard on standby. He said he put them on standby and that he wants ice out of our state; the implication there being that ice can leave on their own or be escorted out. He's not running for reelection so he has no reason to hold back anymore. I have never seen him quite that clipped in a press release before. He is furious. We may have ice being forcibly deported by the MN national guard shortly here and that is going to get very interesting in a lot of ways
I watched his speech and he doesn't actually say that he is putting them on standby to defend against ICE. Reading between the lines, he seems to be putting them on standby to be ready to quell protest so that Trump can't use the protests as an excuse to put federal troops in the area.
What I got from the speech is the following in fairly quick sucession.
- We won't have minnesotans fighting minnesotans.
- The minnesota national guard are minnesotans; they are your friends and neighbors.
- The minnesota national guard has been put on standby.
- Ice is not wanted in minnesota and they need to leave.
The fact that points 1 and 2 were said right next to each other says to me at least that the national guard isn't there for the protesters.
What made me think that is that he rattles off a whole list of state agencies that were being activated to deal with the incident, and then his next words are we do not need help from the federal government.
Quell the protest was probably the wrong wording. But I think that the national guard is being used to ensure that the protests are controlled and don't escalate or turn to violence which would give the federal government an excuse to send troops..
A lot of those same agencies are also the same agencies you'd activate if you were getting ready to boot out ice too though. I guess only time will tell exactly what is going to happen. But Walz did seem like he regretted and learned from his response to the George Floyd protests. It seems likely to me that he may swing the other way this time.
...and then his next words are we do not need help from the federal government.
And what are ICE agents? I haven't seen the interview, and your interpretation could well be correct, but it could as easily be, "We've had enough of federal agents entering our state and arresting and killing our citizens without warrants or due process." Frankly, no state needs that kind of help. We will see.
He’s not running for reelection so he has no reason to hold back anymore.
i am not even an american, but i'd really like to live in a world where running for reelection would be the reason not to hold back.
Yeah, running for office they need to seem bland enough to appeal to the most people. It's kind of a shitty system when you only see their true colors after they are done campaigning. Although, Walz at least has always been pretty transparent in that regard. He's always just been a small town highschool coach. He's not a political creature.
I wish we could keep him in office. But in a way I am also glad he's getting out of politics because especially these past several years it has been clear how hard the job is on him. Him getting out of politics is going to be bad for us but good for him because he is a good person. Asking him to run again would feel like kicking a puppy. He's the only politician where I've ever felt like I needed to apologize to them for voting for them.
Hey just gonna point out that the civil war nearly started some years early due to slave hunters kidnapping folks in Northern states. The only reason that didn't happen was largely due to luck and folks taking matters into their own hands to off slave hunters. I say this to make the point that this whole situation with ICE ain't that far off.
Could means fuck all. The word that needs to be used is will.
"Minnesota WILL prosecute the ice shooter."
When that is the title of an article then it means something. Until then it's all may, might, and could. Weak shit.
The Gestapo is murdering people on the street. Public executions on the streets of the Nazied States of America.
Yeah sure.
How many National Guard went to jail for the Kent State massacre?
Zero. Four murdered, 9 maimed.
Exactly. They will get away with this.
They could. But they won't. That would be more than just token resistance. Everybody knows the Dems are paid by corporations to only resist with words, motions, committees, and meaningless votes.
If we want accountability, we're going to have to demand it, like after George Floyd.
Only once it becomes cheaper to appease us than resist us, will we be appeased.
paid by corporations
This is so "both sides are the same"-coded
If you think we got to this point only because of Republicans... You haven't been paying attention.
No they're not the same exactly, but democratic inaction is nearly as bad as it allows this kind of shit to happen.
The dems are every bit as effective as the people who stay home instead of voting. When it's important, they do nothing.
Blaming the voters for rightly seeing the dems won't fight for them either isn't helping the situation.
We wouldn't be in this mess if the democratic party hadn't made excuse after excuse. We've been betrayed over and over and that takes its toll on people.
I still hold my nose and vote D because they're the lesser of two evils clearly, but I can understand why so many are tuned out.
Did you know Democrats originally tried to make single payer a part of ACA?
The problem is, they needed 60 votes in the Senate, and ONE Democrat, Joe Lieberman, joined EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN in voting against the public option.
1 single Republican voter crossing the aisle could have delivered single payer, but idiots blame the Dems. Electing 1 more Democrat instead of a Republican could have delivered single payer, but idiots blame the Dems. 40 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted NO against Single Payer, and brilliant minds everywhere gargled BOTH SIDES SAME!! You can't make this shit up.
I did, the funny part is instead they literally went with Romney's plan and still got shit on forever for it.
Trying to reason and play politics with facists doesn't work, and its long past time they learn that.
Did you know the Democrats actively prop up republican nutjobs (financially supporting their campaigns) because they think it's easier to win against them? One of those nutjobs was Donald Trump.
You can't make this shit up
If voting R means corporatism and fascism, and voting D still means corporatism and fascism, just on the next election cycle instead of this one, who cares if there's any technical distinction between them?
Because citizens don't get shot in the face under D, for one.
Citizens don't get meaningful reform against face shooting or accountability for face shooters under D either.
The best we ever get is another public condemnation against face shooting and an empty threat to hold the next face shooter accountable, pinky swear this time.
Oh fuck off
Everything they said is correct.
Oh fuck off
Oaf a cough.
Look what it took to get Chauvin prosecuted. If we want pigs to face justice, we have to speak at a volume they can hear us in their mansions.
Chauvin wasn't assaulted with what's legally considered a dangerous weapon. So this case would be much harder. Unprecedented, really.
Chauvin wasn’t assaulted
That's not what he claimed at the time. A big part of every cop-killer story is the allegation that the person they murdered prompted the killing. Chauvin insisted through his entire defense that Floyd lashed out at him in his final moments, right before he spontaneously died of a drug induced heart attack.
We've got video clear as day of the ICE agent casually walking up to the car and plugging the woman in the face. This was a mother who'd just dropped her child off at daycare, not some marauding vehicular anti-ICE assassin. She was given seconds to respond to a command and butchered for failing to act fast enough.
He walked in front of her car after she backed up and turned her wheels away from the thugs to begin fleeing them.
By the logic the government has tried to push on this murder, people should be able to shoot into the vehicles of ICE thugs when they try to drive through protest crowds. We've seen that on video plenty of times in the last year.
Not an american but seems like US' case law is very much precedented here. I don't have a source at hand but there has been at least a dozen similar cases all sided with the victims. Even official training of ICE explicitly says "do not stand in front of the vehicle ever".
If there's no justice here then it's entirely on lack of will rather than law.
Every case people cite are civil lawsuits for excessive force. And people usually don't prevail, especially when an officer is actually in the process of being assaulted.
At most, her family could get a settlement for damages for excessive force. But criminal charges are what would be pretty unprecedented.
I think it's moot to discuss this without bringing up the actual law cases and I'm not going to lie - I'm a bit too lazy and this is too depressing for me to sacrifice my time for.
My faith in US' justice system is not great though so you might very well be right.
I hope that you never find yourself opposite an asshole cop who doesn't care whether you actually pose any danger to them.
Oh God, they're trying the right-wing psyop campaign on Lemmy
The ICE murderer also want assualted. He instigated.
Get that Nazi fuck!!!
The only justice that happens in this country anymore is vigilante
"Should". Whatever this is just an article nothing is going to happen. Also I don't really think prosecuting one officer is enough
The FBI is taking over the case and as such MN state prosecutors cannot access any evidence. I don't know if they can prosecute a case based on just the videos taken from bystanders, but typically there's a lot more to a legal case.
If the FBI takes over the investigation it will land on the desks of podcasters and grifters who have already gone all-in to protect their bosses from being investigated for raping children, so I don't think we're going to see anything satisfying happen here.
I don't know how many innocent people have to die or what skin color they need to have before people will broadly start to seriously think about regime change on our terms.
Need to start somewhere.
It has to start sometime
What better place than here?
ALL
psst. Your line was, "what better time than now?"
"Now is not a time"
"Should" typically means "must" in the legal sense.
But also consider that getting ICE to leave their agent out to dry would would go a ways in breaking their sense of invulnerability. Same dynamic as getting a police union to dump a cop in the courts.
That's why the mayor and government should arrest first and ask questions later. The guy is clearly a flight risk, armed, and dangerous. Likely has a criminal record as well.
Trump can't pardon him
Trump isn't supposed to be able to do a lotta shit the fascist fuckwit is actively doing. Those checks and balances are non-fucking-existant.
Trump keeps getting away with shit on the federal level because no one is stopping him and people comply with his demands. Despite Trump repeatedly "pardoning" Tina Peters, the prison guards in Colorado are keeping her locked up and are ignoring him. Minnesota could do the same
They should just accidentally leak his name, address, etc.
Mistakes happen.
we know lots of names and addresses, nothing happens. the people who care enough to know are not the people to carry out any retaliation. i've not been able to find any reliable reports of any ice agent anywhere getting comeuppance. maga is literally waging war on a peaceful population.
BURN IT DOWN
A couple have been targeted and shot, it doesn't really make the news though.
https://www.inkl.com/news/who-is-jonathan-ross-ice-officer-who-shot-renee-nicole-good-identified
Do they have him in custody?
I bet they shipped that guy out of the state ASAP.
He's most likely being put up in a hotel with his family and hidden from public while the administration hires the biggest legal team they can and they've probably already started shopping for boats for Clarence Thomas ahead of time in case it heads to the Supreme Court.
It's absolutely maddening because as you browse the internet broadly, there are still people who either looked at the video and "still can't decide what happened" or have refused to watch it and are open that they haven't watched and won't watch it, yet are still going to bat for a brute squad who would put a bullet in their heads just as easily as anyone else.
A lot of people have zero interest still, and it wasn't always like this. If this kind of thing had happened in the 90's, it would be a national incident that would have led to entire cities being shut down for civil disobedience and rioting. Something is harming all of our minds, something happened to our country on a deeper level than just the creeping tentacles of fascism, something is harming our very being and sense of agency and it's highly disturbing.
The only reason we have our country being taken away by a dictator who wants to go to war with europe and dispose of his opposition is because broadly most people just don't give a fuck about anything. You see it here in places like Lemmy with younger people who are utterly cynical and discourage activism or even hoping for a better future. You see it in exit-polling from the last federal election which despite having the highest voter turnout percentage in history, most people broadly had no idea who to vote for or who represented what. You see it when you try to order a hamburger and the 22-year-old cashier stares straight ahead looking tuned-out or confused. You see it on late-night comedy television where the audience just laughs on command at "jokes" about how France is preparing to fight a war with the US.
We're all gonna die if you guys don't put down the phones and tablets and keyboards and start talking to each other face-to-face. Your brains are being rotted out of your skulls and nobody is DOING anything about it. We're going to lose EVERYTHING.
You're wrong about about what's causing the apathy and disinterest. It's not being caused by phones and tablets, social media addiction, or doomscrolling. Those are symptoms of the real problem.
That 22 year old cashier is zoning out because that's their 2nd or 3rd job, and they're exhausted. Those folks who refuse to watch the video? Some of them simply can't, because they're burnt out from just trying to survive. Those cynical kids with no hope for the future? After 2 recessions and a pandemic, that's kept them out of the jobs market, I can't blame them.
A lot of people are struggling to survive. Struggling to ensure they can keep a roof over their head, struggling to afford groceries, struggling to afford that car they need to get to the 2 or 3 jobs they work.
The cost of living is ridiculous now, and wages are stagnant. A large amount of people are simply surviving. All their energy is going to getting their basic needs met, and not all are able to meet those needs. They can't spare the attention to care about the rest of the world, when they are worrying about which bill to pay and which can wait. Or how to keep that car running just a bit longer until they can get it fixed.
Trump and his goons are absolutely taking advantage of this too. Don't fight back, or we'll make things worse. Argue with us and we'll take away that benefit you're using to survive. So you're absolutely right when you say something has to be done. And the sooner, the better. But understand that for those folks we are talking about, they won't be able to help. Not yet. Unfortunately, things will have to get worse before they are forced to act. And not "ICE is killing more people" worse. It'll be "I'm getting evicted, I can barely afford to eat, and a lot of people I know are the same."
I will agree that the system is now a cycle, that it's now self-sustaining apathy that breeds exploitation that breeds apathy, etc. It's a downward spiral, but I will not budge that our dead internet of mindless dopamine hits isn't a strong link in that chain of despair or a major factor in people's lack of willingness to organize to actually address those problems that are making people want to escape reality. To say nothing of what it's done to our atomized perspectives and inability to agree on a shared world anymore.
But that aside, the crux of what I'm talking about is community. In other times, we were much better as a species and society at creating community that reinforces both the laws of the land and provides us with opportunities to either change the system or to reinforce it and help each other. Whether or not you think that doomscrolling is responsible or not for the conditions we're in, it's absolutely keeping us divided and isolated and alone. We are a species wired to have face-to-face socialization and it's on the decline. Rates of young relationships are dropping like a rock, birth rates are dropping, people don't go out and hang out and enjoy being around each other anymore because we all have a billion voices of strangers stomping around in our heads making us fear and hate each other and ourselves. Social pressure is what drives people to want to make better choices, it's what drives people to want to not look stupid so they will be pushed to learn about issues and ideas. Social pressure is a stronger guiding hand for morality and ethics than any legal or religious system. Instead of nurturing community we all have discord servers with other self-diagnosed people unwilling to answer the phone or even say hi to a stranger.
This might not be the only problem we have, but it's a huge one and we're broadly not addressing it or caring how much harm it's doing, and people, particularly in places like this, will feel so triggered by the mere suggestion that their online habits are depriving them of a better world and more opportunities that they'll rage and drop essays about how much being online all the time has helped them, and then 5 minutes later make another post in another forum talking about how lonely and depressed they are. Make it make sense.
I agree with you about the harms social media causes. It's not helping matters at all, and actively harms people. But so does alcohol. Drinking can relax people, make them feel numb and happy for a short while. Doesn't help them at all. But we don't point the finger at alcohol, we say it's a symptom of a larger problem. In this case I'm saying social media consumption is the same, just a symptom of a larger problem.
And like alcohol, it doesn't actually help at all. It just takes a person's mind off their problems for a while. It lets them unplug and just mindlessly scroll Tiktok or Instagram. Say stupid shit on Twitter.
Building community is an answer to this problem. Arguing on the internet is like yelling at the void, where speaking in person tends to make someone think more and be more mindful of what they say, since the repercussions are immediate and right on front of you. And it's just better for the person too, getting to feel that connection to other people.
The problem though, is that it takes a lot more effort, time, and money to participate in community. The people I'm talking about, simply can't. They don't have that time, energy, or money. They can't afford to meet friends for dinner, even at each other's homes. They can't go meet friends at a nearby park because they're exhausted from work. They can't go hang out at a friend's place because of the time commitment. The couple of hours they might have at the end of the day is spent browsing simply because it's low energy and doesn't cost them anything more. It's the only thing that lets them unwind, or unplug, or blow off some steam.
I think the answer is to have the community meet these people where they are. That's a huge undertaking though, which is probably why we haven't seen very much of it yet. But it's going to be sorely needed.
Good comment. You see a lot of why dont all Americans just strike? type comments from people living in countries with workers protections.
Which video, could you link it here?
Here's a short assortment from top results in youtube for "Minneapolis Shooting":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQCvNExBDjE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hCsV_NyiLY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5j0lkQiVEw
They all wear masks for situations like this. He will never be identified.
They have tons of pictures of him without his mask. He pulled it up right after murdering the woman.
He's already identified as Jonathan Ross, 43:
He previously lived near Fort Bliss in New Mexico after possible military service, including a deployment in Iraq as suggested by family social media
https://www.inkl.com/news/who-is-jonathan-ross-ice-officer-who-shot-renee-nicole-good-identified
Trump may not be able to pardon him but he can invade the state, take over the prison, have puppets do it for him, whatever. He's not bound by law anymore, he does whatever the fuck he wants and somehow all those dumb Americans just let him get away with everything.
In a way, a gross overreaction by trump might wake more people up. Most here can see the boiled frog trajectory. Let others see that, while they can still help stop it. There's a reason they do it slowly. They need to manufacture consent.
You're talking about firefighters standing in the middle of a huge ass forest fire, still doubting there's a fire.
There's nothing done slowly. What Victor Orban did in 8 years turning Hungary into a dictatorship is what Trump did in the first 100 days of his second term.
If people still fail to see what's happening, it's Idiocracy level stupidity. If people aren't woken up by now, they will never wake up.
Yet,.in Cambodia, a million people were genocided in the equivalent of trump's first term. It's all relative.
For most people, despite the political landscape, their day to day is not changing that rapidly. It's on the same gradual downward trajectory it has been for 20 years.
Seeing heinous acts wakes them up. Things like cities being occupied. Ice murders etc. People are waking up but for those outside the affected cities they don't feel unsafe. Yet.
Idiocratic levels of stupidity is exactly what got us here in the first place. We can thank the magnificent American voters for this.
The imperialism thing is nuts. He would absolutely send many millions to their death or into poverty merely for his own glorification.
yeah, the BOP is still pretty republican
War crimes by invading Venezuela, kidnapping it's "president", taking bribes, pedophilia, influencing the stock market while profiting from it, shooting boats murdering its crew near Venezuela which are also war crimes, deporting us citizens, invading us cities, putting people in concentration camps in the US, Afrikan countries and El Salvador without process, the list goes on and on and on.
But SCOTUS cleared him of prosecution for anything he does while being president.
Oh my, what will happen?
Will we reach across the aisle and let cooler heads prevail by letting the killer go free?
Or will the killer learn first hand that having a badge doesn't mean he can kill random innocent people?
Need a whole lot of this happening.
Please prosecute him, Minnesota
Oh and this is my 150th comment here in this instance - I DON'T have to keep telling you this
Oh and this is my 150th comment here in this instance
???
Weird flex, but okay
Right haha
1239 comments here
MURDER!
And I could win the lottery. Or fly to the moon. The current play of all media and politicians is to throw around words like could, and might, or possibly. All in the name of “doing something” without actually doing anything. Just empty threats upon empty threats. Because the politicians do not care.
He's a murderer, not a shooter.
The media can't legally say "murder" unless/until there's a conviction. So it's either "alleged murderer" or "shooter", and they definitely chose of the two, the one that 'safely' implies more guilt.
One can't really reasonably fault them for that choice, if one believes in his guilt, which you obviously do.
Yup, and it's generally "alleged murderer" only after they've been charged.
Knowing how the media uses these terms helps understand where along the line things are in terms of the justice system. If I read "murder" I'd assume the guy has been convicted (so justice is being served) because of the convention of not using that word until there's a conviction. "Shooter" means he hasn't even been charged, so I know there's been no justice.
It wouldn't be good for the media to imply justice has been served when in reality it hasn't. So it's good that they call him a shooter so those of us with media literacy know the situation accurately.
no they can’t, the FBI stole all the evidence
That may not have been enough, given that in incidents like George Floyd, public video postings were some of the most critical evidence. Everyone has that evidence, even if they cannot provide on-scene confirmations.
That doesn't exactly work in the murderers favour, considering now the only evidence is various videos of him doing the murder in a non-threatening situation.
What's the opposite of jury nullification?
A lynch mob?
Ehh kind of. But, you know, nullification is when the laws say they're guilty but the jury says no. Typically because the laws are unjust. But there's an opposite where the laws might say they're innocent, but the jury says guilty because the laws are also unjust.
Yeah, still sounds like mob justice. Not disagreeing with the mob in this case mind you.
Yeah, true. Too much jury nullification of any sort means you're systems are failing. Not good for a society.
ICE is the lynch mob.
About as organized as one, but by the very definition the violence done by and on order of the government can't be one.
Also jury nullification. Doesn't matter if the verdict the jury delivers is guilty or innocent, so long as the jury says one thing and thinks another it's jury nullification.
The FBI kicked Minnesota out. FBI is doing the “investigation “.
Can't prosecute someone of they can just walk out of the state unimpeded. Has he been detained in Minneapolis, even? He's certainly not under arrest. We'd have heard about that.
Remember that Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to leave Kenosha, Wisconsin and drive all the way back to Illinois without city or state officials lifting a finger. After turning himself in, he was let out on bail and - not long after - spotted
at a bar with his mother in Mt. Pleasant, Wisconsin, drinking beers and posing for pictures alongside five men who sang "Proud of Your Boy", a song used by members of the far-right Proud Boys political organization. In one photo with two of them, Rittenhouse flashed an "OK" sign, a hand gesture that some have associated with white supremacists
And this was just some vigilante asshole, not a badged up capo in the Trump Army.
Can't prosecute someone of they can just walk out of the state unimpeded
Yes you can. You could issue a warrant for the person. That has nationwide reach. Rittenhouse left Wisconsin but eventually stood trial there. Not sure what your issue is.
Trial in absentia is a thing as well.
The should start as soon as fucking possible.
They should arrest him and put him in the toughest prison in the state with the word Chomo written on his forehead.
At this point having other prisoners know he was ICE might be just as bad for him. I don't the modern SS is popular amongst inmates
Trials need evidence which Noem and others knowingly stole. Absent evidence a conviction will be hard to obtain. The state's helpless pleading here isn't about jurisdiction it's about access.
Couldn't they charge them with evidence tampering or obstruction or something?
IANAL
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution makes this very unlikely to succeed. I'm not sure I would want to risk setting that kind of court precedent.
Don't worry, they wont.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/08/minneapolis-protests-continue-after-renee-good-shoot-and-killed-by-ice-agent
Start tossing these Nazis in jail and see them scatter
This is like the Ashli Babbitt case. Half the country thinks she's a domestic terrorist and law enforcement killed her in the act of putting people in danger.
At most, her family will get a civil settlement. Everyone knows it.
Ashli Babbitt was trying to storm the halls of congress, with an angry mob behind her, with weapons already drawn on her, given warnings but still trying to break glass to get through, and was shot once.
The other was a mom after dropping her kid off from school, turning her vehicle around on a road that ICE blocked, and was shot 3 times in the face at point blank range.
These are not comparable cases.
They could but I doubt you'd get a conviction given how many boot licking citizens there are.
I'm not so sure. There are numerous widely circulated videos shot by members of the public that are easily available online. Any of those could be entered in as evidence. You just have a question of strength of case. If the video original starts 30 seconds previous and shows the agent not identifying himself and charging at the car, then you have a pretty open and shut case. The only question becomes identifying the specific agent. If ICE will not turn over the identity and it's not clear from the video, it may be more difficult to charge that person. That would lead to an interesting State versus Federal showdown where the state court would try to subpoena a federal agency, and I'm sure the federal agency would do everything possible to stop that subpoena.
They've ID'd the shooter, Jonathon Ross is the guy's name.
Couldn't trump just send him to another state and then oh well, he's not in Minnesota, so too bad?
I'm sure there's extradition agreements between states, but you think Flordia or Texas will send him there after Trump 'pardons' him?
I really wish we would teach more self-defense classes to prevent wrongful executions in broad daylight. For Renee.
Yeah I don't have any faith in the laws of any state or nation to avenge Mrs. Good, pretty sure it isn't going to be those losers.
Could. But they won’t. And if they do, Trump will pardon him. I mean, he can’t. But he will. And no one will stop him.
But will they? I don't want to hear what theoretically can be done about these MAGA lunatics, I want it done
So, I haven’t gone through all the comments, however, yeah, the state can charge him but, the federal government can also make the case a federal one, then drop charges.
There is precedent for that.
Under the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, even if he is fully acquitted in Federal court, he can later be charged and convicted in State court for the same actions; this is not considered Double Jeopardy.
Double Jeopardy applies to the offense, not the act. It is an offense against the state to violate its law against homicide; it is an offense against the federal government to violate its law against homicide. The same act creates two offenses; each can be prosecuted independent of the other.
(I haven't agreed with this doctrine in the past, but this particular case has forced me to consider factors of which I was previously unaware.)
We’re actually agreeing I think. That’s also the doctrine that I would use to back my argument. The federal government, based on rhetoric, isn’t going to bring any charges. If the state does, using dual sovereignty, they can determine, that because it’s involving a federal agent, it violated federal law, and it should be tried in federal court. Then they’ll drop charges.
Edit: I’ll add, I’m certainly not a lawyer, and there’s nuance I probably don’t understand
No, I don't think we are agreeing at all. I think you're misunderstanding the concept of dual sovereignty.
The assumption you seem to be making is that there is only one court with the jurisdiction to try him. You seem to be arguing that if this was a federal crime, he will be tried only in federal court, and not in state court.
This is not accurate.
Dual sovereignty is the idea that the same act constitutes a crime against the state, and a completely separate crime against the federal government. He can be tried in both courts, not just one. The outcome of either court is irrelevant to the other. He can be acquitted in one or both; he can be convicted in one or both. The charges being dropped in one have no bearing on the other case.
He can, indeed, be tried and convicted twice for the exact same act, once in state court and once in federal.
Right, but I’m saying, that that state is going to attempt to prosecute, and the Feds are going to say it should be a federal trial, and drop charges. Are you saying the state would refile charges? Can you do that? You have already filed them, the feds said it was a federal issue, then refused to prosecute.
I guess where I’m confused is, if the it went to federal court, it wouldn’t be tried in state court, correct?
Or, are you saying, it can be both? Which, I can understand that, but, again, I don’t see how the state prosecutes, if the federal court rules that it’s a federal offense, not a state offense.
Edit: I’ve looked into it, involving federal agents, the case can be removed to a federal judge to oversee the states proceeding.
Right, but I’m saying, that that state is going to attempt to prosecute,
Right. Understood. The state prosecutor files charges in a state court
and the Feds are going to say it should be a federal trial,
Right. The federal prosecutor files charges in a federal court.
[The feds] drop charges.
The only charges the feds can drop are the charges in federal court. So there are no more federal charges.
Are you saying the state would refile charges?
I'm saying the state never dismissed the charges in state court. They don't need to refile anything; the state charges are still filed.
I guess where I’m confused is, if the it went to federal court, it wouldn’t be tried in state court, correct?
That is incorrect. The state and the federal government can both decide they want to prosecute. Luigi Mangione, for example, faces charges in both New York and Federal courts.
I was about to bring reference to Luigi into the discussion you help clarify the point you were trying to make to the other individual because it was an active example and noticed at the very end of your comment that you did so yourself. Like you I’ve struggled with accepting this in the past but it seems perfectly situated for the current landscape of states attempting to function under a corrupt fascist federal regime. In the past a state would commonly not pursue charges that were satisfied by federal procedure but that was because generally those procedures were able to be respected by the state’s.
Okay and when the federal government removes the state judge from the state case and appoints a federal judge, what then? The federal judge is now hearing the case on behalf of the state.
That's not a thing that can happen. The state supreme court can substitute another state judge, but the federal government does not have the power you describe.
28 U.S. Code § 1441 & 1442 disagree.
28 USC 1441:
Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
- State level murder charges are not a civil action.
- The district courts of the United States do not have original jurisdiction over state-level murder charges.
28 USC 1442:
(a) A civil action or criminal prosecution that is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to any of the following may be removed by them to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending:
(1) The United States or any agency thereof or any officer (or any person acting under that officer) of the United States or of any agency thereof, in an official or individual capacity, for or relating to any act under color of such office or on account of any right, title or authority claimed under any Act of Congress for the apprehension or punishment of criminals or the collection of the revenue.
Apprehension or punishment of criminals: The president's position is that ICE is repelling an invasion, not enforcing law. The president's argument against Birthright Citizenship, and his entire justification for non-judicial deportation is that the immigrants in question are not "criminals", but foreign nationals not subject to the laws of the United States. The detainees are not considered criminals; they are not afforded the rights of criminals. Since the president's executive order on birthright citizenship, ICE actions in general are not for the apprehension or punishment of criminals.
Allowing the case to be moved to the district court on these grounds would set a more important precedent than the murder charge.
The other categories do not apply to ICE agents.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I do believe we have people deranged enough to try. Thank you for the comprehensive breakdown. I certainly do not know the nuances of law, just what I gathered.
What factors forced you to support double prosecution now? Because charges are against someone you don't like?
The unprecedented lack of accountability on the part of the Federal government. To wit: Trump's rampant misuse of the presidential pardon power.
We have seen the reverse from time to time: State courts failing to hold white defendants accountable for crimes against black victims. At that time, federal prosecutors were able to step in with their own prosecutions.
Ideally, both governments should be trustworthy and accountable, and justice could be achieved in either court in any case. Here, with the defendant being an agent of the federal government and the federal government behaving so egregiously, their position cannot be trusted.
Well, the law says he doesn't have to be in danger to shoot, he just has to think he's in danger. It would be impossible to convict him because he's innocent.
So if you throw a paranoid individual into a daycare, they can legally kill a bunch of kids because they think they are in danger?
Any they police? Are these American children with toy guns? If yes to either, then daycare is out. Forever.
No. The "reasonable person" standard is applied. Would a reasonable person in the position of the imperiled person believe they faced a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm? If so, anyone present may use any level of force that a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.
Even if we give him the benefit of an unreasonable doubt and say he was sufficientlt imperiled, "Necessary" is what is going to hang this guy: the level of "force" "necessary" to end the "imminent threat" was to take a half-step to the right. "Sidestep-Right" is the extent of the force he was justified in using against her here.
A reasonable person knows how cars work. They go in the direction the wheels are pointed at. Her wheels were pointed away from the officer, towards an escape path. The mofo was just dying for a chance to shoot someone
I agree completely.
The jury owes him the benefit of a reasonable doubt. For purposes of discussion, I contemplated a scenario where we extended that doubt beyond reasonable, and into the realm of the unreasonable. Even if his unreasonable belief of danger was somehow deemed acceptable, it would only justify a level of "force" necessary to stop that danger. Even if he were actually in danger, moving slightly to his right is all he was justified in doing under self defense law.
Her car wheels drove directly over the ground where he was. He was literally hit as he got out of the way. He would've been seriously injured if he didn't move.
He walked in front of a vehicle being directed to move by the other masked assailants.
He would have been fine had he not walked in front of a moving vehicle.
As you stated, he would have a been seriously injured if he didn't move. moving out of the way is the only needed action. When does stopping and killing come in to play again?
A reasonable person would understand that a vehicle doesn't magically come to a stop if the driver loses control of it (e.g. by being murdered), and would instead GTFO of the way rather than using that time to draw, aim, and fire a weapon.
In fact, the video even shows the vehicle crashing after said loss of control.
So police are never supposed to shoot at cars trying to run them over because the car would keep driving for a bit anyways? Good luck in court with that one...
So police are never supposed to shoot at cars trying to run them over
I don't think that follows from their argument. It's valid for this particular case. It would not be valid in a scenario where the driver was reacting to the officer's evasion attempts by steering toward them.
Aye, there may be some limited circumstances where the it might actually make sense. This event in MN ain't it.
It's an ineffective strategy, so it's illogical to do so anyhow. Anyone with even basic grasp of physics should understand this. I suppose this is where the dumbing down of the American education system has gotten us.
Even DHS guidelines say as much. This agent violated these guidelines.
Good luck in court with that one…
I wouldn't be the one defending myself in court from murder charges, so I'm not the one in need of luck. Good luck on the shooter convincing me (e.g. as a jury member) that the shooting was justified.
Don't be silly, it only applies to cops
Yes, he would be not guilty by reason of insanity. You can't hold mentally ill people responsible for what they did during a psychotic episode. I mean, you shouldn't, in US he would probably still end up in jail. Because US doesn't have a functional mental health system.
I don’t know why you’re downvoted. You’re essentially correct and this justification has been used by LEO on many occiasions. All they have to do is claim they felt or saw something that made them believe their life was in danger - even if that threat was them deliberately placing themselves in front of a vehicle and refusing to step aside when it was apparent the vehicle was headed toward them with plenty of warning at worst a shin bruising speed. This is how we get people shot who are unarmed, or already on the ground, or acorns hitting car roofs.
However, he’s not innocent. Not at all. It will be impossible to convict because the legal system is full of boot lickers or scared of the police, and trump toadies will intervene.
I mean yeah, it's not that he's innocent, it's more that it would be impossible to prove he's guilty because to prove that you would have to somehow show what he was thinking in that specific moment. It's no just some justification. It's how the law is constructed. In a normal country you would require police to act with accordance to their training and if they panic and fuck up they are responsible. In US if a cop fucks up it's ok, it's not his fault.
And people are downvoting because they don't like the law, not because they don't like my comment. Each downvote is tiny protest against police brutality in US. Keep them coming!
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the construction of the law. As designed, it doesn't matter what the individual was thinking. It matters what a hypothetical "reasonable person" would be thinking or doing in the circumstance. It'd be up to the finder of fact to determine if the actions were reasonable (though, here, depending on charges, it might be "reasonable officer").
There are also potential wrinkles like qualified immunity, but that might be hard to prove in a basically unprovoked killing like this. Additionally, the broad leeway afforded to police might not be there in this case since the State would actually be seeking a conviction and other courts have openly started not giving ICE the benefit of the doubt.
But the key takeaway here is that it's less important what this murderer was thinking when he did the murder and more important whether a "reasonable person/officer/[whatever]" would have been justified in taking those actions.
That's not as important distinction as you think. The important part is that it's based on the perception of the officer, not on actual situation. You can't say that because when looking at the video it doesn't look like he was in danger so the shooting was not justified. If he claims that from his perspective it looked like he was in danger it will be pretty much impossible to prove it was unreasonable. The moves to goalpost so high cops are only convicted when the shoot someone sitting on a couch eating ice cream or lying on the ground not moving and even then it's not guaranteed. I
This is not the legal standard at all. It is very specifically not based on the perception of the officer. It's based on whether a hypothetical reasonable person would have taken those same actions.
The ICE officer probably won't testify or share their feelings. And if they do, the standard is still based solely on their actions viewed through the lens of this hypothetical reasonable person. The defense will argue that they justifiably feared for their life (or whatever their statutory standard is), but the officer's claimed perceptions are irrelevant.
Imagine an insane cop shoots someone because they think they're a space alien trying to probe them, but it's actually just some guy trying to stab the cop. The reasonable person standard means you'd assess the shooting based on the supposed actions of a reasonable person. Would a reasonable person have shot them? Probably. So, even if a shooter is motivated by the delusional belief that their target is a "space alien" intent on probing them, the act is legally justified if the target was posing an actual, objective threat—such as an attempted stabbing. Because a "reasonable person" would use force to stop a knife attack, the shooter's bizarre motivation does not negate the fact that the use of force was objectively necessary. In this case, the subjective fear of the officer is irrelevant if the act was objectively unreasonable.
And, yeah, of course the courts bend over backwards to suck cops' dicks and they get away with murder all the time. But, honestly, how many cops are even criminally charged? At trial, in front of a jury, it's harder to prove. We just usually don't see indictments and when we do, often important evidence is excluded in favor of law enforcement.
This is exactly the legal standard in Minnesota: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066
"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"
The insane cop shooting space alien is some nonsense example. It specifically says that the officer takes decision based on what he "perceives". Notice that it also mentions "quick judgments" but it doesn't say anything about training. So a cop doesn't have to follow any protocol (like don't get in front of a moving car to stop it) but is basically acting on the spot, based on what he sees and how he interprets it in the moment. This is insanely low legal standard and proving that cop broke this law is pretty much impossible. In this specific case, to get a conviction, you would need 12 partisan jurors that ignore the evidence and convict him in protest, some sort of reverse jury nullification basically.
And of course I'm not saying that the cop was right here. I think this psycho intentionally put himself in front of the car to kill this women. My point is you can't prove if he did it intentionally or not and the law doesn't say that if he does something stupid the shooting is not justified. And yes, we can spend hours arguing if it's reasonable to think this car would run him over and if this goes to court that's what they will do there. I think, based on many other cases of police shootings that went to court, that there's 0% chance jury will agree it was not reasonable and convict him.
First, disclaimer, I hadn't looked at the Minnesota statute, so I was only speaking a general model code approach. Second, I don't know if the intent would be to try the ICE guy under this standard since he wouldn't usually fit the definition of a law enforcment officer ("peace officer") under Minnesota state law.
But, also, that language is a lot less generous than you're making it out to be. The broader legal concept of "...known to or perceived by the officer..." still points to a "reasonable officer" in their shoes. The "known" and "perceived" are more about things like "dispatch said the suspect has a weapon" or "he reached into his pocket and drew a gun (which later we found out was a toy)." If an officer used deadly force in that situation, they'd be evaluated based on their actions without perfect hindsight (the knowledge that the gun was fake), but still under the "reasonable officer" standard. And their perceptions still need to be within the bounds of credibility and reality.
In this case, ICE guy would have to be able to say something like "the wheels were turned towards fellow Officer White" and "the woman revved the engine and lurched forward, making me believe he was going to be struck" and then those things would have to be articulable perceptions of events at the time. They're still going to be able to be questioned and the jury could disagree with their stated perceptions (lies). And after that, his response (the shooting) would be evaluated by the jury based on if his actions were reasonable for an officer in his shoes.
The language around "quick judgements" is speaking more to an reasonable mistake of fact (fake gun for real gun) in the situation. This is a bit of a legal shield for them, but doesn't excuse wildly incorrect judgements outright. And, no, this statute doesn't speak specifically about training, but this language applies to what Minnesota deems "peace officers," and there are requirements for certification and training in those statutes and administrative codes.
And I think we can agree to disagree on the idea that him doing something stupid doesn't have bearing on whether the shooting is justified under the law. That statute has a requirement for deescalation, for example. My reading of the Minnesota statutes is that they actually set a very high standard of expectation for their prace officers (as far as US law enforcement goes). Whether or not they actually hold them to those standards? Hard to say. But, at least according to stats I could pull in a quick google, they're 45th in police killings, so... good for them?
But I agree that it's tough to get a jury to come back with a conviction. I'd argue that a large part of that is because of the deep deference courts give to law enforcement and how much that taints trials against the police. Plus, here, it's likely it'd get removed to federal court, which makes it even more suspect right now. And that's assuming they overcome federal supremacy/immunity stuff and bring state charges at all. It's infuriating because I can't not see this as blatant violations of Constitutional protection and so it should be a slam dunk case against the ICE agent at the federal level (and probably the state level).
It'd be interesting to see how a jury of Minnesotans would feel, given the totality of the circumstances.
This is a very reasonable take but I simply don't think it works like this in US. It's not "the wheels were turned like that and he revved the engine and so on". It's "I looked to me like like she is going to hit me" or "I thought she is going to drag officer X". It can be obvious from the video that he was wrong but you can't really prove it didn't looked like that from his perspective. It's stupid and it shouldn't work like that but this is how justice system treats cops in US. Daniel Shaver and Philando Castile are some cases that come to mind. 100% unjustified police murders that got acquitted by a jury because the guy looked behind him in first case or reached for his documents in the second. The standard is extremely low and if the defense can come up with any justification it will most probably work. In this case the justification is stronger than in those two cases. She didn't follow orders, she was driving when ICE agent reached inside her car and she didn't stop when the shooter stepped in front of her car. If he gets convicted it will mark huge shift in public perception of law enforcement. It's possible but it would be unprecedented.
Absolutely. I really am arguing for how the law is written, but it's unfortunately just not applied fairly to police. Americans should demand that it is, especially since protection from the government is the whole point of major sections of the Constitution.
Shaver's a great example of how excluding evidence is used to just 100% give the case to the cops. They couldn't use the video OR the "you're fucked" engraving on the cop's gun? Fuck outta here with that. Maybe you can make the prejudicial > probative argument on the etching, but... no. And the video being excluded is just beyond the bounds of reasonable.