Shortly after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday, city leaders began looking into whether the officer had violated state criminal law.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said, “We collectively are going to do everything possible to get to the bottom of this, to get justice, and to make sure that there is an investigation that is conducted in full.” Police Chief Brian O’Hara followed up by saying that the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension is “investigat[ing] whether any state laws within the state of Minnesota have been violated.”
If they conclude that state law has been violated, the question is: What next? Contrary to recent assertions from some federal officials, states can prosecute federal officers for violating state criminal laws, and there is precedent for that.
So if you throw a paranoid individual into a daycare, they can legally kill a bunch of kids because they think they are in danger?
No. The “reasonable person” standard is applied. Would a reasonable person in the position of the imperiled person believe they faced a credible, criminal, imminent, threat of death or grievous bodily harm? If so, anyone present may use any level of force that a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.
Even if we give him the benefit of an unreasonable doubt and say he was sufficientlt imperiled, “Necessary” is what is going to hang this guy: the level of “force” “necessary” to end the “imminent threat” was to take a half-step to the right. “Sidestep-Right” is the extent of the force he was justified in using against her here.
A reasonable person knows how cars work. They go in the direction the wheels are pointed at. Her wheels were pointed away from the officer, towards an escape path. The mofo was just dying for a chance to shoot someone
I agree completely.
The jury owes him the benefit of a reasonable doubt. For purposes of discussion, I contemplated a scenario where we extended that doubt beyond reasonable, and into the realm of the unreasonable. Even if his unreasonable belief of danger was somehow deemed acceptable, it would only justify a level of “force” necessary to stop that danger. Even if he were actually in danger, moving slightly to his right is all he was justified in doing under self defense law.
Her car wheels drove directly over the ground where he was. He was literally hit as he got out of the way. He would’ve been seriously injured if he didn’t move.
He walked in front of a vehicle being directed to move by the other masked assailants.
He would have been fine had he not walked in front of a moving vehicle.
As you stated, he would have a been seriously injured if he didn’t move. moving out of the way is the only needed action. When does stopping and killing come in to play again?
A reasonable person would understand that a vehicle doesn’t magically come to a stop if the driver loses control of it (e.g. by being murdered), and would instead GTFO of the way rather than using that time to draw, aim, and fire a weapon.
In fact, the video even shows the vehicle crashing after said loss of control.
So police are never supposed to shoot at cars trying to run them over because the car would keep driving for a bit anyways? Good luck in court with that one…
I don’t think that follows from their argument. It’s valid for this particular case. It would not be valid in a scenario where the driver was reacting to the officer’s evasion attempts by steering toward them.
Aye, there may be some limited circumstances where the it might actually make sense. This event in MN ain’t it.
It’s an ineffective strategy, so it’s illogical to do so anyhow. Anyone with even basic grasp of physics should understand this. I suppose this is where the dumbing down of the American education system has gotten us.
Even DHS guidelines say as much. This agent violated these guidelines.
I wouldn’t be the one defending myself in court from murder charges, so I’m not the one in need of luck. Good luck on the shooter convincing me (e.g. as a jury member) that the shooting was justified.
Any they police? Are these American children with toy guns? If yes to either, then daycare is out. Forever.
Don’t be silly, it only applies to cops
Yes, he would be not guilty by reason of insanity. You can’t hold mentally ill people responsible for what they did during a psychotic episode. I mean, you shouldn’t, in US he would probably still end up in jail. Because US doesn’t have a functional mental health system.