- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted on 1/10/26 at 7:46 pm to rwestmore7
Posted on 1/10/26 at 7:46 pm to rwestmore7
Another reason ICE has more difficulty operating in some states and cities is that local law enforcement and governments often lawfully refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Under federalism and the Tenth Amendment, states and local agencies cannot be compelled to enforce federal law, and many jurisdictions have sanctuary policies that limit how and when their officers assist ICE.
Those limits are designed to protect community trust and are legally permitted, but they do make federal enforcement more complex and more constrained by the rule of law, which is why ICE so often tries to work alongside local agencies when it can.
What makes this especially ironic is that many of the same people arguing on the other side of this issue are usually the loudest about states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment. You can’t praise state sovereignty when it suits you and then turn around and act shocked when states and cities exercise that authority to limit federal power in their own communities.
Those limits are designed to protect community trust and are legally permitted, but they do make federal enforcement more complex and more constrained by the rule of law, which is why ICE so often tries to work alongside local agencies when it can.
What makes this especially ironic is that many of the same people arguing on the other side of this issue are usually the loudest about states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment. You can’t praise state sovereignty when it suits you and then turn around and act shocked when states and cities exercise that authority to limit federal power in their own communities.
1
Posted on 1/10/26 at 7:47 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
Interference laws do not create jurisdiction.
Or maybe they do. They certainly should
Posted on 1/10/26 at 7:52 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
When situations involving bystanders or traffic arise, the proper response is for local police to step in, because that is who actually has jurisdiction over those kinds of offenses.
Democrats have instructed local officials to not assist ICE, so this isn’t a legit possibility.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 7:56 pm to djsdawg
So, you believe an ICE agent should just be able to say frick the 10th amendment?
Posted on 1/10/26 at 8:07 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
So, you believe an ICE agent should just be able to say frick the 10th amendment?
He should be allowed to detain for impeding an operation and allowed to defend himself.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 8:09 pm to Splackavellie
quote:
Also that the roads were icy. How was he supposed to know the vehicle wouldn't keep coming at him even IF the tires were turned.
if only he was trained to not approach a vehicle from the front beforehand the road conditions wouldn't be that important.....
oh wait, he was. he just broke protocol
Posted on 1/10/26 at 8:11 pm to L.A.
Who tf is Brian Krasenstein and why should I give a frick what he thinks?
I can look at video and draw my own conclusions...
I can look at video and draw my own conclusions...
Posted on 1/10/26 at 8:32 pm to Timeoday
quote:
There is something odd when a mother wants to attack a federal law enforcement agent for doing his job.
Either paid or a liberal nut. Probably paid.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 8:46 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
rwestmore7
Educate yourself before you pretend that you know what you’re talking about.
quote:
18 U.S.C. § 111 (Obstruction of Federal Officers): Makes it a felony to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a federal officer (like FBI, DEA, etc.) performing official duties.
18 USC 111 is very clear, and yes it applies local/state law enforcement agencies. Your argument regarding the 10th amendment is especially laughable.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 8:49 pm to L.A.
Oh people actually cared about what that Krassenstein guy said lol
When I saw his picture initially I just passed right on by.
I wonder if he’s Jewish.
When I saw his picture initially I just passed right on by.
I wonder if he’s Jewish.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 8:51 pm to L.A.
These *** twins get paid to troll and say the opposite of what happened in society everyday and make millions doing it.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 9:22 pm to Rekrul
First, 18 U.S.C. 111 is not “obstruction” in the generic sense. It is about forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with a covered officer while they are performing official duties. The word “forcibly” is doing a lot of work there. That is why courts don’t treat ordinary nonviolent inconvenience, presence, speech, or simple traffic issues as automatic 111 felonies.
Second, yes, 111 applies to federal officers and it can apply to certain other officers when they are assisting federal functions, but none of that changes the threshold issue I raised. Even under 111, the government still has to prove the officer was engaged in the lawful performance of official duties and that the defendant used force or a threat of force. You do not get to skip straight to “they were impeding” and treat that as probable cause for a felony without showing how the actual elements fit the facts.
Third, the 10th Amendment point has nothing to do with whether 111 exists. It is about whether states and local agencies can be compelled to help ICE enforce immigration law. They cannot be forced to do that, and many jurisdictions lawfully decline cooperation. That is why ICE often relies on partnerships with local agencies when it can.
So if you think 111 applies here, fine. Walk through it. What was the forcible act, what was the lawful duty being performed as to that person, and what was the probable cause before the stop. If you can’t do that, citing “18 U.S.C. 111” like it’s a magic spell doesn’t prove anything.
Second, yes, 111 applies to federal officers and it can apply to certain other officers when they are assisting federal functions, but none of that changes the threshold issue I raised. Even under 111, the government still has to prove the officer was engaged in the lawful performance of official duties and that the defendant used force or a threat of force. You do not get to skip straight to “they were impeding” and treat that as probable cause for a felony without showing how the actual elements fit the facts.
Third, the 10th Amendment point has nothing to do with whether 111 exists. It is about whether states and local agencies can be compelled to help ICE enforce immigration law. They cannot be forced to do that, and many jurisdictions lawfully decline cooperation. That is why ICE often relies on partnerships with local agencies when it can.
So if you think 111 applies here, fine. Walk through it. What was the forcible act, what was the lawful duty being performed as to that person, and what was the probable cause before the stop. If you can’t do that, citing “18 U.S.C. 111” like it’s a magic spell doesn’t prove anything.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 9:27 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
rwestmore7
the people you are arguing with dont care about justice, they just are glad a lesbo got dropped for protesting dumb shite.
they are really gonna lose their shite when the officer catches charges in Minnesota and then you'll see them screaming about how they are the victims
Posted on 1/10/26 at 9:27 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
You do not get to skip straight to “they were impeding” and treat that as probable cause for a felony without showing how the actual elements fit the facts.
Or maybe you do. A good lawyer could easily make this argument as the car is a weapon when used to interfere and assault .
This post was edited on 1/10/26 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 1/10/26 at 9:28 pm to L.A.
When you only have enough time to either draw your gun and shoot or dive out of the way of an oncoming vehicle, you’re going to dive out of the way if you actually think the vehicle is going to hit you.
He knew she wasn’t going to hit him, that’s why he decided to shoot instead of dive. Shooting a driver doesn’t somehow magically stop a vehicle before it hits you. In fact, it makes it more likely that you get run over.
He knew she wasn’t going to hit him, that’s why he decided to shoot instead of dive. Shooting a driver doesn’t somehow magically stop a vehicle before it hits you. In fact, it makes it more likely that you get run over.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 9:30 pm to Masterag
quote:
He knew she wasn’t going to hit him,
Besides the fact that her car hit him, right?
Posted on 1/10/26 at 9:32 pm to djsdawg
Calling a car a “weapon” doesn’t magically satisfy the elements of a felony.
For 18 U.S.C. § 111, the government has to show forcible assault, resistance, or interference while the officer is performing lawful duties. Courts and police-use-of-force policies are very clear that an officer cannot create a deadly-force scenario by stepping into the path of a vehicle during a questionable stop and then claim the vehicle was used as a weapon.
If the vehicle is pointed away and the officer moves in front of it, that is the officer placing himself in danger. That tactical choice matters. You don’t get probable cause for a felony by manufacturing the threat you later point to.
So if someone thinks § 111 applies here, they still have to walk through the elements and the facts: what was the forcible act, what was the lawful duty as to that person, and what existed before the stop. Labeling the car a “weapon” after the fact is not a substitute for that analysis.
For 18 U.S.C. § 111, the government has to show forcible assault, resistance, or interference while the officer is performing lawful duties. Courts and police-use-of-force policies are very clear that an officer cannot create a deadly-force scenario by stepping into the path of a vehicle during a questionable stop and then claim the vehicle was used as a weapon.
If the vehicle is pointed away and the officer moves in front of it, that is the officer placing himself in danger. That tactical choice matters. You don’t get probable cause for a felony by manufacturing the threat you later point to.
So if someone thinks § 111 applies here, they still have to walk through the elements and the facts: what was the forcible act, what was the lawful duty as to that person, and what existed before the stop. Labeling the car a “weapon” after the fact is not a substitute for that analysis.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 9:39 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
Labeling the car a “weapon” after the fact is not a substitute for that analysis.
A car angled to block the road with a crazy person behind the wheel has the potential to ram any car driving by, so the label sticks before the fact.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 9:43 pm to sgallo3
quote:so dumb
the people you are arguing with dont care about justice, they just are glad a lesbo got dropped for protesting dumb shite.
The ideal situation is the lady staying safe and warm at home with her kids. Liberals rotted her brain, and that is sad
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:10 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
If the vehicle is pointed away and the officer moves in front of it, that is the officer placing himself in danger. That tactical choice matters. You don’t get probable cause for a felony by manufacturing the threat you later point to.
So if someone thinks § 111 applies here, they still have to walk through the elements and the facts: what was the forcible act, what was the lawful duty as to that person, and what existed before the stop. Labeling the car a “weapon” after the fact is not a substitute for that analysis.
Oh I see, you’re a delusional leftist. How fricking stupid are you to think these two idiots weren’t impeding their official duties? What do you think the women were doing there in the first place?
They were committing a felony and the federal agents had every right under the law to detain them for doing so.
Him positioning himself in front of the car is irrelevant. They were rightfully ordering her out of the car because of the above felony she was committing.
The officer did not position himself in front of the vehicle as it was moving forward like you’re trying to insinuate, the officer was in front of the stopped vehicle ordering her to get out, she accelerated directly towards him, hitting him in the process. That’s why she was killed
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News