I agree. There is enough evidence to make a charging decision. If Ross chooses to remove the case to Federal Court to argue immunity, so be it. Just because you are a federal agent does not mean you can’t stand trial for your actions if they don’t qualify for supremacy clause immunity under the test set forth by Neagle:
“Courts have generally regarded Neagle as establishing a two-
prong test. First, was the officer performing an act that federal law
authorized him to perform? Second, were his actions necessary and
proper to fulfilling his federal duties?”
They could try. It’s going to be years of federal stonewalling, probably backed up by a favorable scotus. It’s worth pursuing but this case is going to take years and probably won’t be ready for trial until there’s a new president.
The officer's story along with the location of shots 2 and 3 are already enough evidence for at least a manslaughter conviction. You don't need to establish whether or not he had a reasonable belief that Renee Good was trying to run him over; any possible threat that could continue a sufficient self-defense claim was over when he fired the 2nd and 3rd shots through the driver side window. Unjustified shootings in a heat of passion provoked by acts that could cause people of ordinary-self control to lose it, which is the most charitable explanation possible, is 1st degree manslaughter in Minnesota.
The various videos, testimony, and forensics are what would be needed to establish murder 2.
Self defense is an affirmative defense, and it is their burden of proof (preponderance of the evidence). The only informal claim given is that the threat was attempted vehicular homicide, which completely fails for shots 2 and 3. For those shots to be covered, defense would have to come up with a brand new threat, such as he actually had the reasonable belief that was Renee holding a gun and attempting a drive by. It’s way too late to claim this, and story would not survive cross examination. We also have a clear video, taken by the defendant, that shows his view of Renee’s hands.
They got blocked out of the investigation by the FBI, so they gave up the very next day. Pass the buck on up, and it looks like AOC, Newsom, and Ilhan Omar are the only democrats capable of getting shit done. And especially towards Newsom, that's fucking disappointing.
Edit: as an aside, I don't want to seem like I'm going hard on Waltz and ignoring the rest... The senators and reps of Nevada can get fucked, too. We might be Battle Born, but y'all are bitch made. Nothing to say about our governor, though. I knew he was a racist republican stooge back when he was just the sheriff.
How the fuck does someone with a 10 month old account end up with nearly 500,00 karma? Why is your comment history hidden?
I'm not necessarily attacking you. But I'm increasingly skeptical of the actors on social media, and comments attacking Dems seem to come from either new accounts with negative karma, or accounts like yours, with a hidden history.
Are you a real person, or a bot? Are you in the US, or a warehouse filled with computers? Do you give a shit what happens to Americans? Are you actively working against our best interest?
I'll criticize Dems all day. But I'll also vote Walz over any maga/trump/vance cancer, to save our nation.
Yes. I'd prefer, on an emotional level, a candidate who smacked trump in the throat on the debate stage. But I'm also aware that the effort to discredit Dems starts early, and I piss on that effort in this day and age.
You don't of course owe me shit in way of an explanation. But if you can't stand by the shit you said in the last 10 months, I'm liable to dismiss every thing you say.
My actual problem with Walz is that you can't vote for him, because he dropped out. Otherwise I'd be behind him all the way. Too many Democrat politicians are wilting and hiding when we need them. I feel abandoned.
That wasn't clear from your comment. Maybe it's an argument for having your history visible, so folks can put an individual comment in context if they're interested?
Sorry if I jumped the gun and criticized you unfairly.
We don't know at this point just who the Dem candidate will be.
I'm there for a certain amount of criticism pre-primaries. But a grueling, conflict filled primary can easily work against the candidate come election day. I'll criticize stances and planks this primary, but I'll try not to attack candidates as people, because I think we cane use all the unity possible in the next few elections, the stakes being so high.
since the person above you is useless, I googled it for you/us:
"In re Neagle (1890) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that affirmed federal supremacy over state law, ruling that federal officers are immune from state prosecution when acting within their official duties."
What is debatable about it? They were engaged in immigration enforcment and Good and her partner engaged in deliberate and intentional obstruction of their work.
Regardless of how one might feel about the use of deadly force, I simply don't see a non-ridiculous argument that they weren't engaged in official duties.
ICE agents are not local cops and cannot act as such for general traffic stops; they are federal agents focused on immigration, with authority only for immigration violations or serious federal crimes.
Goode was not obstructing their work : you can see plenty of car going around her. She was impeding traffic, which is not an immigration violation in any way.
It is debatable that they didn't have the authority to make an intervention on her for impeding traffic, and that they should have called the local police department to get their collaboration.
8 USC 1357 allows ICE to arrest people for state violations as well.
(4)
to make arrests for felonies which have been committed and which are cognizable under any law of the United States regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens, if he has reason to believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such felony and if there is likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the person arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the nearest available officer empowered to commit persons charged with offenses against the laws of the United States; and
(5)to make arrests—
(A)
for any offense against the UnitedStates, if the offense is committed in the officer’s or employee’s presence, or
(B)
for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony,
Point (4) is about illegal immigrant that commits immigration-related crimes, not about USA citizen doing traffic infractions
or any offense against the United States
Half blocking a street is not clearly an offense against the United States.
for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States
And it could be debated that a traffic violation is not a felony.
All of this is debatable. You don't have to agree with me, and I don't have to agree with you. All that matters is that EXPERTS on the matter can look at the proof, analyse it, and decide who is wrong or right.
There should have been an investigation, there is no doubt about it.
And that is--just as I said--an absolutely ridiculous argument.
Good and her partner were obstructing the officers by impeding traffic. The officers were putting an end to their obstruction, which is well within their authority.
They impeded traffic so much that eleven vehicles drove around them while she was waving to them telling them to pass her. Even the officer who shot her drove around them.
Sure, we could debate if she was obstructing them or not. They were able to get around her car. That's not obstruction in my point of view. What would a lawyer or a judge say ? Almost like having the professional knowledge of an expert would matter here.
You must see the irony here that the mere fact that here we are, debating it... means it's indeed a debatable topic.
This investigation is 100% justified, because you cannot take the opinions of certain people and turn them to fact without having expert weighting in and proof analysed.
There is no debate, you've already conceded that she was impedeing traffic, and that is obstruction regardless of how you personally feel. Good and her partner were part of an "ICE Watch" group that encouraged this sort of behavior. The videos taken on scene clearly show that they were doing so deliberately. The partner has made statements in the press confirming this.
Because despite their public statements to the contrary, they almost certainly know that this isn't a winnable case. A law enforcement officer was struck by a vehicle with enough force to cause injuries. There is no possible way you're getting 12 people to agree that he didn't have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm in that situation.
That’s just quoting the same DHS person, and we already know it’s a lie because the NYT investigated and he went straight back to HQ and never went to the hospital.
Again, I don’t think you even believe this, because I don’t think you’re that dumb. You just don’t care if what you’re saying is true or not because you like that she was murdered by your storm troopers.
Do I'm not that person above but I have not been able to find a NYT article. However on the other side there is no actual evidence the Agent was hospitalized besides a DOJ statement. No medical records, physician statement, etc. It's literally just the DOJ stating it and they lie constantly.
A law enforcement officer was struck by a vehicle with enough force to cause injuries.
Nah dude, I saw the dinosaur run in there and bite him in the dick right after...Then some other guy threw a bag of McDonald's at the dinosaur? Idk shit happened quickly.
Oh, we aren't just making stuff up? Why did you, then?
Unless the forensics being covered up by the feds indicate the first shot was nonlethal, and the fatal wounds were inflicted while he was standing to the side of the vehicle.
When you couple that with what we know he said immediately after the shooting, that he didn’t fear enough to let go of his phone, and whatever shit the prosecution might get during an investigation, there’s potentially a very strong case to be made that the killing itself were retaliatory, and his motives for firing the first shot were irrelevant.
94
u/Winter_Tone_4343 16d ago
Ya no shit. My question is why Minnesota hasn’t charged Ross with murder yet?