Favorite team:
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:2030
Registered on:5/26/2020
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
In this case it really does not matter, because all the elements in your bolded part are there. But to be clear, the part you bolded only applies to 5B, not 5A.
No. That is not what the statute says. I even posted it.
if they commit an offense in their presence.

Thus, when some fools are playing a "game" of obstruct ICE, ICE agents can arrest them.

I have been seeing and hearing misinfo on this point.

8 USC section 1357 (a)5(A):

quote:

Any officer or employee of the Service authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General shall have power without warrant-
(5) to make arrests-

(A) for any offense against the United States, 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,





LINK
quote:

He was standing in front of her car. She put it in drive, looked right at him and gunned it. There is no other explanation for those actions other than she was trying to hit him.
Was she trying to kill him? We’ll never know. But 100% she was trying to hit him.


100%
Add too that Good's wife was out of the vehicle because she was arguing with the guy who got stuck trying to go around the Good's car and she wanted to film their obstruction of ICE for social media clicks.

CNN is showing a video of before the incident: that combined with some other reports and the NY Post make it pretty clear what the backstory is:

These women were trained ICE protestors. They had been obstructing ICE earlier that day and had gone down the road, parked perpendicular on the road in another attempt to obstruct ICE. Another car - presumably not ICE, although I am not 100% sure - tried to go around the Good's car and got stuck. That is the other vehicle to the right of Good's car from the most circulated video.
ICE arrived and attempted to arrest Good, she resisted and either intentionally or recklessly accelerated at an agent in front of her as agents attempted to arrest her, and she was shot.
So the Good's car moved to block the street in order to obstruct ICE and this caused another (presumably non-ICE) vehicle to go around her and it got stuck in the ice. Renee's wife gets out to film the encounter for clicks. Renee is arrested for obstruction, she resists and then attempts to run over an ICE agent facilitating her arrest
Its the disteict judges that are the problem. Luckily their jurisdiction is very rare in immigration cases.
The immigration judges are pretty good, we just need more of them.
I am looking at big picture and this individual. Could be wrong, but I bet she gas consumed the nazi messaging. She resisted arresr, presumably saw cops around her including one in front of the vehicle and accelerated.

I, if course, don't know for sure. I don't think it is that wild of an idea to believe she was trying to run over an evil ICE agent: big picture combined with her actions.
ABC. I love David Muir - he is sooooo sexy.
quote:

Trying to kill?


Yes. Trying to kill NAZIS. These people think our government is kidnapping citizens and disappearing them. You really think those types of people are incapable of rationalizing murdering those doing the disappearing?
quote:

Did she mean to kill or even hurt the ice agent? I doubt it. I think was l she was just trying to get away and in her panicked state she may not have seen the agent.


i hear what you are saying, and good post. But I don't agree with this.

I am willing to bet she has bought all the Nazi/fascist/hitler/end-of-democracy/etc rhetoric. With that mentality, emotions get charged and people do things sort-of-out-of-character. I am not convinced at all that she had no intention to harm agents [or literal Nazis to her].
No way!

She was just a legal observer.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Here is the federal statute that would cover whether the agent was justified.

I am not sure how anyone could reasonably argue that he was not justified in shooting her.

quote:

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:

(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.

(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.


quote:

In re Neagle (1890)
Idaho v. Horiuchi (2001)


I am not sure about Neagle, but the Idaho v. Horiuchi case is simply stating that the supremacy clause means federal immunity applies to the actions of federal officials. It does not mean that the State cannot file state charges against the federal official.
quote:

State of MN can't.

Any trial for a federal agent in performance of duties will not be allowed to remain in state court.


How so?
I am no certain, but I do not think there is any way the feds could stop Minnesota from charging anyone - including a federal agent - with a state crime.
My $1 law degree guess is that if SCOTUS rules against the Administration that will be it.

After that, any litigant will have to prove actual damages if it is going to get any tariff refund.
So a company that raised its prices to cover tariffs will not get an award. A company who ate a reduction in profit due to the tariffs could recover.

quote:

Didn’t he use tariffs the same way in his first term?


I do not think so. Most of his first term tariffs were either based on a statute allowing the President to tariff when national security is at risk or as part of the International Trade Commission program.