re: Ice Shooting In Austin - Democrats are ALREADY attacking.

quote:

---

Those sorry sons of bitches in Austin did a press conferenceand had absolutely no goddamn information other than oh my God someone was shot in Austin by bad guys enforcing laws and the city CANNOT stop "the bad guys" from enforcing said laws. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution Article VI, Clause 2 Federal Law is the supreme law of the land.

---

Yup. I already said that it was wrong of leftist Austin officials to say anything more than. "Here's what we know so far [X]. We will be conducting our own investigation, we hope with the cooperation of the Feds."

Scream all you want, but the Supremacy Clause only applies when federal law preempts state law. That doesn't apply here.

In defense of a Texas prosecution, the ICE agent CAN assert the federal officer immunity defense, but that is fact dependent. The essential prong would be to establish some objective proof that the ICE agent's actions were reasonable.

What you didn't answer was how the fleeing felon rule no longer applies...which, of course, you know because it sounds like you took your responsibilities very professionally.

LEOs can't shoot someone just for fleeing. DHS guidelines are clear about this, which would undercut the federal officer immunity claim.

I'm just going to leave this here.

The Rule: Under the U.S. Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner (1985), an officer may only use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others.

quote:

---

you're a criminal running from authorities after committing a crime(s) you can't or shouldn't be shot?

---

We probably all agree that you SHOULD be shot, but the law is clear that it would be illegal to do so.

In 1985, Garner Supreme Court case decided the issue. I know we have lots of LEOs on PoliBoard. They could explain it for us.

Here's the ChatGPT summary:

#############

In general, a law-enforcement officer in the United States cannot use deadly force merely because a person suspected of a crime is fleeing.
The Supreme Court established this in Tennessee v. Garner (1985). The constitutional rule is essentially:

Fleeing by itself: does not justify deadly force.

Fleeing suspect who poses a significant/imminent threat of death or serious physical injury: does justify deadly force

The officer must have a reasonable basis for believing the person poses that danger.

So, for example, a person running away from an officer after committing a felony cannot simply be shot in the back because the officer wants to stop the escape. But if the fleeing person is known to be armed and is threatening people, the analysis changes.

For a vehicle, the same basic principle applies. The fact that someone is fleeing in a car doesn't automatically authorize shooting at the driver. The critical question is whether the vehicle or driver is presenting a sufficiently serious threat to people.

That distinction is especially important in the Austin/Perez case: if the evidence ultimately shows that Perez was merely trying to escape, that's legally very different from evidence that he was using the vehicle in a manner that posed a serious threat of death or bodily injury.

quote:

---

56 work days not calendar days I believe.

---

Even still, most police officers train for 3-6 months and then are heavily supervised when in the field. I also highly doubt these field offices are abiding by the 56-day rule. These ICE Agents are being dumped on the street with no real training and it shows.

quote:

---

oh boy, they're put on the street in less than 2 months

---

Oh boy, it is exactly the same as it ever was. Even when it was INS, a long standing agency and USCS, another long standing agency.

Why is there an issue now?

Also, you did say they recieved no training. These officers are also degreed and most have prior training from military or other LEO agencies.

So basically, you lied.

quote:

---

I also highly doubt these field offices are abiding by the 56-day rule. These ICE Agents are being dumped on the street with no real training and it shows

---

Now you are just making shite up

Naw man he highly doubts doncha know.

Man you are emotionally invested alter.

quote:

---

It's not ... necessarily. Scroll up for the explanation

---

Thanks Hogcard. Yes, there is an exception for reasonable fear of imminent harm to self or others. That would be a great defense in the Renee Good case if it ever got prosecuted.

On the facts that we know so far, that's going to be tough to prove. Maybe ICE has bodycam footage that helps that defense?

He wasn't armed and dangerous (they caught him through a match on a license plate reader). Unlike Good, he APPARENTLY, didn't use his car as a weapon. Maybe something happened BEFORE what the video shows.

quote:

---

He wasn't armed and dangerous (they caught him through a match on a license plate reader). Unlike Good, he APPARENTLY, didn't use his car as a weapon. Maybe something happened BEFORE what the video shows.

---

None of this has been officially verified. The investigation is still ongoing.