re: Bovino just told reporters the suspect was on scene several minutes interfering...

quote:

---

It's the same obfuscation technique you see to divert discussion from the relevant facts of situations to create all sorts of framed digressions to steer the conversation to a more in-group friendly scenario.


Hmm where have I seen this behavior before hmm.

---

I dare say the counselor is engaging in a good bit of projection.

quote:

---

The agent with the pepper spray ratcheted up the situation considerably

---

False. You are wrong

quote:

---

They caused the unnecessary escalation and shooting of a likely unarmed man posing no threat

---

It's amazing. Everything you just said it wrong

Sir, you watched the video and your analysis was ICE Is mean and pushes old ladies for no reason. You're a jokester

quote:

---

polling

---

quote:

---

The totality standard doesn't mean you can go back in time to look at any potential external factor over years or decades.

---

This is you squirming. You are trying to take this off topic. NOBODY stated years and decades. That's not what anybody is talking about. So why even mention it. Because you can only go there to "justify" what you are selling.

So let's be clear. YOU are trying to make this about something nobody is even suggesting as if it gets you points. It doesn't.

quote:

---

Graham v. Connor

---

No no toto! NOPE. You are not going to get away with trying to confuse people by asserting that the case is even about what I stated. AS EVERYBODY can clearly see I also talked about Barnes v. Felix.

As an "attorney" why would you try to confuse 2 cases?

Unanimous decision (Opinion by Justice Kagan):

Courts may not apply the so-called moment-of-threat doctrine.
Instead, excessive-force claims must be judged based on the totality of the circumstances, including events leading up to the use of force, not only the split-second moment when force was used.

So why are you lying?

Why this matters for ICE: If a governor like Tim Walz makes public statements weeks in advance telling people to "get in the faces" of agents, that is now a "preceding event" that an agent can cite.

He is flat out lying.

quote:

---

a. The LEO yells "gun" which leads to the shooting b. If LEO didn't know of another weapon, how could they articulate an objective belief of fear of threat of death? I don't think you've thought about this as a standard applied across the board. Any detained person could theoretically have a weapon the LEO doesn't know about.

---

I don’t know what you are trying to say.

quote:

---

This is you squirming.

---

No I'm addressing your points directly, in totality.

quote:

---

You are trying to take this off topic

---

No, You ae the one who said stuff like this

quote:

---

- Walz called for people to take to the streets.
- His campaign strategist begins organizing via Signal.
- The LT Gov becomes an Admin for this Signal group.
- A state Sen gives details on locations and tactics of ICE
- Another Dem creates a data base to DOX ICE.

As a reporter noted, this is massively organized.

- The resistance begins training people to confront ICE
- They begin attacking ICE
- They start impeding their movements.
- AND WALZ continues to advocate for more.

- ANTIFA "General" of Mn calls on people to shot ICE after.....
- AG states that people can shoot ICE under "stand your Ground" laws.

- The misson begins to go after ICE (btw.. it's all documented).
- Lady runs over ICE agent causing 36 stitches.
- Lady runs over ICE causing internal bleeding and she is shot and died.

---

I'm addressing how your points are not relevant. If you're arguing your points are off topic, I'll accept that as an agreement of that point.

quote:

---

AS EVERYBODY can clearly see I also talked about Barnes v. Felix.

---

That's not the smoking gun you think it is. Nobody is arguing that the analysis wouldn't involve the actions from the shove, or, in the most expanded view, from when the LEO started crossing the street.

quote:

---

Courts may not apply the so-called moment-of-threat doctrine.

---

Nobody is arguing that is the standard.

quote:

---

Why this matters for ICE: If a governor like Tim Walz makes public statements weeks in advance telling people to "get in the faces" of agents, that is now a "preceding event" that an agent can cite.

---

You just don't understand what it means. I'm trying to educate you, but I fear that's hopeless.

quote:

---

If you watch the video of the friendly removing the gun, I am not sure any of the other officers there noticed that it was a friendly that took the gun. I do not see one head turn when the gun is removed.

---

Even if they did see it they do not know that is the only weapon on his person as he is still actively resisting