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.
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?