While the clowns in the Trump administration in defending their ICE murderer have claimed that State courts have no jurisdiction over federal officers, this case says differently. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html
It arose out of the infamous Ruby Ridge incident where FBI agents shot and killed a number of white supremacists holed up in an isolated cabin. One of the people killed was a woman holding a child who was hit by a shot aimed at a man running into the cabin. The Feds predictably declined to charge the sniper, Horiuchi, with any federal crime but a prosecutor in Idaho filed State charges of involuntary manslaughter. The defendant claimed immunity (just like Ross is likely to) but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, directly below the SCOTUS, rejected immunity stating:
"Federal agents will be immune from state prosecution if they acted in an objectively reasonable manner in carrying out their duties."
It referenced an almost 100 year old SCOTUS case United States ex rel. Drury v. Lewis, 200 U.S. 1 who's finding was: "Drury squarely holds that a state may prosecute federal agents if they have acted unlawfully in carrying out their duties."
And while reiterating the standard for use of deadly force I have already stated several times, it also made this statement which seems particularly pertinent to the case in Minneapolis where the agent continued firing even when he was not in front of the vehicle:
"Of course, a law enforcement officer must justify every use of deadly force as necessary and proper; he may not keep pulling the trigger, regardless of changed circumstances. We confronted precisely this situation in Hopkins v. Andaya, 958 F.2d 881, 887 (9th Cir.1992), where the officer kept shooting after the suspect ceased being dangerous. We rejected the officer's claim of qualified immunity, holding that the justification for the use of deadly force does not continue indefinitely. If circumstances change, and the danger abates, it will be unreasonable to continue using deadly force. Footnote 18
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty is known to be an aggressive pursuer of law enforcement misconduct and her office as announced it will probe Good's killing even in the face of Federal stonewalling. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/minneapolis-district-attorney-pledges-independent-231321667.html
Here's hoping justice can be done.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidOK so just working from a quick read here. In Hopkins v. Andaya there were two altercations; The first where Stancill was beating the cop, possibly with the cop's own baton, when the initial shooting took place. The second shooting was across the street where Stancill had pursued the cop, but was now wounded and unarmed.
Bumping this thread since it's relevant to the discussion in the "Renee Good Autopsy" thread.
That does not seem analogous to the Renee Good shooting, where all shots were fired in about 1 second, and she was still in control of the deadly weapon.
@no1marauder said9th circuit...80% overturn rate...no more discussion needed
Bumping this thread since it's relevant to the discussion in the "Renee Good Autopsy" thread.
And justice will be served when the other Good is charged with instigating the whole ordeal
3 edits
@no1marauder saidHere's hoping justice can be done.
While the clowns in the Trump administration in defending their ICE murderer have claimed that State courts have no jurisdiction over federal officers, this case says differently. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html
It arose out of the infamous Ruby Ridge incident where FBI agents shot and killed a number of white supremacists holed up in an ...[text shortened]... nneapolis-district-attorney-pledges-independent-231321667.html
Here's hoping justice can be done.
With a Trump dominated justice department and Supreme Court meddling in things?? Pigs might fly, but I doubt it.
Despite all the cases, rulings, and procedural maneuverings, our (so called) 3rd branch of government has been reduced to little more than a toothless advisory group which is routinely scoffed at. Rulings have been ignored, and enforcement has been a joke.
@mchill saidThis was the last administration, not to mention we’re not the ones dressed up as and thinks we can become farm animals.😂
Here's hoping justice can be done.
With a Trump dominated justice department and Supreme Court meddling in things?? Pigs might fly, but I doubt it.
Despite all the cases, rulings, and procedural maneuverings, our (so called) 3rd branch of government has been reduced to little more than a toothless advisory group which is routinely scoffed at. Rulings have been ignored, and enforcement has been a joke.
@no1marauder said"While the clowns in the Trump administration in defending their ICE murderer have claimed that State courts have no jurisdiction over federal officers, this case says differently. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html
While the clowns in the Trump administration in defending their ICE murderer have claimed that State courts have no jurisdiction over federal officers, this case says differently. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html
It arose out of the infamous Ruby Ridge incident where FBI agents shot and killed a number of white supremacists holed up in an ...[text shortened]... nneapolis-district-attorney-pledges-independent-231321667.html
Here's hoping justice can be done.
It arose out of the infamous Ruby Ridge incident where FBI agents shot and killed a number of white supremacists holed up in an isolated cabin. One of the people killed was a woman holding a child who was hit by a shot aimed at a man running into the cabin. The Feds predictably declined to charge the sniper, Horiuchi, with any federal crime but a prosecutor in Idaho filed State charges of involuntary manslaughter. The defendant claimed immunity (just like Ross is likely to) but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, directly below the SCOTUS, rejected immunity stating:'
What happened to Hiriuchi ? prison? death?
@mchill saidname ONE ruling ignored?
Here's hoping justice can be done.
With a Trump dominated justice department and Supreme Court meddling in things?? Pigs might fly, but I doubt it.
Despite all the cases, rulings, and procedural maneuverings, our (so called) 3rd branch of government has been reduced to little more than a toothless advisory group which is routinely scoffed at. Rulings have been ignored, and enforcement has been a joke.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidA new prosecutor decided to drop the case after the appellate court ruling.
"While the clowns in the Trump administration in defending their ICE murderer have claimed that State courts have no jurisdiction over federal officers, this case says differently. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-9th-circuit/1430138.html
It arose out of the infamous Ruby Ridge incident where FBI agents shot and killed a number of white supremacists holed up in ...[text shortened]... rectly below the SCOTUS, rejected immunity stating:'
What happened to Hiriuchi ? prison? death?
But the ruling remains good law and it is based on more than 100 year old SCOTUS precedent.
1 edit
@Sleepyguy saidA car already past you isn't a "deadly weapon". From the case:
OK so just working from a quick read here. In Hopkins v. Andaya there were two altercations; The first where Stancill was beating the cop, possibly with the cop's own baton, when the initial shooting took place. The second shooting was across the street where Stancill had pursued the cop, but was now wounded and unarmed.
That does not seem analogous to the Renee Good sho ...[text shortened]... ng, where all shots were fired in about 1 second, and she was still in control of the deadly weapon.
"To endorse Andaya's chosen course of action--firing four more shots--would be to say that a police officer may reasonably fire repeatedly upon an unarmed, wounded civilian even when alternative courses of action are open to him."
https://openjurist.org/958/f2d/881/hopkins-v-andaya-t
@no1marauder saidCars can go backwards. Cars can be turned. If he doesn't stop the non compliant dangerous nut behind the wheel who else will she hurt? Also you're not allowing him any margin for the split second decision she forced him to make.
A car already past you isn't a "deadly weapon".
3 edits
@Sleepyguy saidThere is no reasonable view of the situation that makes it likely that the car was going to be turned toward Ross. And no matter how many spurious descriptions you invent of Goode (none of them any more convincing than Ross ' ), I have severe doubts a Minnesota jury will agree with your MAGA inspired propaganda.
Cars can go backwards. Cars can be turned. If he doesn't stop the non compliant dangerous nut behind the wheel who else will she hurt? Also you're not allowing him any margin for the split second decision she forced him to make.
The use of deadly force is disfavored in law and it is only to be used in extreme circumstances where the user or someone else is faced with immediate threat of death or grave physical harm:
"Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985). Law enforcement agents may use deadly force only if they reasonably believe that killing a suspect is necessary to prevent him from causing immediate physical harm to the agents or others, or to keep him from escaping to an area where he is likely to cause physical harm in the future."
That hardly applies here.
@no1marauder saidSpurious? She was a dangerous nut. Following cops around intentionally trying to prevent them from doing their job, honking the horn, blocking the road with her vehicle, trash talking the cops, refusing their lawful orders, and hitting an officer with her car. She created a dangerous situation and that context should be considered when evaluating whether his split second decision was reasonable.
There is no reasonable view of the situation that makes it likely that the car was going to be turned toward Ross. And no matter how many spurious descriptions you invent of Goode (none of them any more convincing than Ross ' ), I have severe doubts a Minnesota jury will agree with your MAGA inspired propaganda.
The use of deadly force is disfavored in law and it is on ...[text shortened]... else is faced with imminent threat of death or grave physical harm. That hardly applies here.
@Sleepyguy saidNot a single one of those claims appear to be true.
Spurious? She was a dangerous nut. Following cops around intentionally trying to prevent them from doing their job, honking the horn, blocking the road with her vehicle, trash talking the cops, refusing their lawful orders, and hitting an officer with her car. She created a dangerous situation and that context should be considered when evaluating whether his split second decision was reasonable.
There's no evidence she said anything to the ICE agents but "It's OK, I'm not mad at you".
There's nothing showing she actually interfered with anything they were doing.
At least one eyewitness says that the agents gave conflicting orders with another telling her to move the car. That would have been a lawful order; "get out of the f***ing car" is not.
And there isn't any video evidence the car even touched Ross and if it did, it barely grazed him.
Ross walked completely around the car and never said either of the women were under arrest; he made no effort to detain the other woman at all before she got in the car. He and his fellow thugs created the situation, which was dangerous only to Goode and her partner.
He gets no points because he's a poorly trained hothead. The jury, unlike you, is going to be shocked by his "f***ing b**ch" comment seconds after he murdered Goode. This case won't be decided by right wing nuts like yourself and Mott, but by the citizens of Minnesota who probably lack the worshipful attitude you have towards ICE goons.
EDIT: ICE has apparently decided it doesn't have to pay any attention to that silly Fourth Amendment. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ice-says-it-doesnt-need-judicial-warrants-to-enter-homes-what-to-know/ar-AA1UQtPi?ocid=BingNewsSerp
@no1marauder saidHis partner did
Not a single one of those claims appear to be true.
There's no evidence she said anything to the ICE agents but "It's OK, I'm not mad at you".
There's nothing showing she actually interfered with anything they were doing.
At least one eyewitness says that the agents gave conflicting orders with another telling her to move the car. That would have been a lawful o ...[text shortened]... /ice-says-it-doesnt-need-judicial-warrants-to-enter-homes-what-to-know/ar-AA1UQtPi?ocid=BingNewsSerp
🙄