Has anyone seen vid of the lead-up? Everything I've seen is clipped to several seconds before the shots are fired. It doesn't justify the outcome but one of the narratives I've seen is she had been blocking the agents for some time.
It's de facto legal if you'll get away with it. Lon Horiuchi executed (sniped from a distance) an innocent woman holding a child at Ruby Ridge over what was ultimately a missed court date for a crime her husband was acquitted of. He was then promoted and went on to take part in Waco.
When he was prosecuted, the feds played jurisdiction games fucking with the case until the case was so cold it was difficult to prosecute.
The U.S. Attorney filed a notice of removal of the case to federal court, which automatically took effect under the statute for removal jurisdiction[11] where the case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge on May 14, 1998, who cited the supremacy clause of the Constitution which grants immunity to federal officers acting in the scope of their employment.[6]
The decision to dismiss the charges was reversed by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit, which held that enough uncertainty about the facts of the case existed for Horiuchi to stand trial on state manslaughter charges.[6] Ultimately, the then-sitting Boundary County prosecutor, Brett Benson, who had defeated Woodbury in the 2000 election, decided to drop the charges, because he felt it was unlikely the state could prove the case and too much time had passed.
Quite the contrary, in such an environment it is even more important to figure out what is de facto legal because you cannot count on reading the law to determine such.
She wasn't blocking at all. Please watch the video. In one of them a car passes in front of her without trouble. It's a 2 lane 1 way road, she's only in 1 lane.
It does not. Even if what you speculated was true that is not a capital crime, and that 'officer' (I use the word lightly) is not judge, jury and executioner.
Are you really suggesting that an armed federal law enforcement officer doesn’t have the ability to detain someone that they suspect is interfering with one of their operations?
You might want to cite some case law here supporting that assertion. They may not be able to charge someone with a traffic infraction but can they detain someone? Absolutely.
> Are you really suggesting that an armed federal law enforcement officer doesn’t have the ability to detain someone that they suspect is interfering with one of their operations?
Well, gosh. It's a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure I was taught in school that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized
Something like that, anyway.
To be blunt: your assertion is batshit. NO, the cops can't just "detain" people on random "suspicion" of "interference". They need probable cause to suspect a crime in progress. Period. There are no exceptions. There never have been. If you want to argue that they clearly have the ability, you need to explain why that car in its perfectly legal travel lane was somehow a criminal violation. You seem extraordinarily inclined to split hairs on the other side of this argument, so it seems... odd that you're being so cavalier on this one.
No, ICE can't detain anyone on a "traffic infraction". No one can. That's not criminal, and you know it.
More to the point, obviously, sure: there are gray areas where cops stop teenagers to see if they run or smell like weed or whatever, and they can get away with it. They don't then proceed to shoot their suspects in the fucking face. Seriously? How are we possibly even having this discussion. There's no universe in which this is acceptable law enforcement practice.
Yes, the fourth amendment exists. Yes, law enforcement officers can detain you if they’d have reasonable suspicion of a crime you have committed, or about to commit.
(That last bit I italicized you might want to read again, because it’s pretty important and you left that part out and it is the cornerstone to everything in this incident and specifically what I articulated in the comment of mine you replied to).
What crime was she "about to commit" then which she needed to be detained to prevent? Sketch for me the indictment you're imagining for which she got executed. You're doing hyper-specific hair splitting elsewhere in this thread, surely you'd like the opportunity here.
The ability of people on the right to throw all their principles about limited government and checks and balances and constitutional restraint out the window the second the person who got shot in their face is a political enemy is just amazing to me. You people are the ones who think we all need guns all the time to PREVENT this kind of thing, I thought!
> What crime was she "about to commit" then which she needed to be detained to prevent? Sketch for me the indictment you're imagining for which she got executed. You're doing hyper-specific hair splitting elsewhere in this thread, surely you'd like the opportunity here.
That’s up to the agents to articulate and the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries to evaluate.
The fact is that law enforcement are able to legally detain people under certain conditions and those conditions do not need to be adjudicated in the moment of detainment. It can come later, and the LEOs can be held responsible if they violated someone’s rights. People on here commenting otherwise either misunderstand the law, or are intentionally providing misinformation to manipulate people and create outrage.
> That’s up to the agents to articulate and the investigators, prosecutors, judges, and juries to evaluate.
Which will never happen, because the suspect is a faceless (literally) body in a morgue. You're just dodging. Because, and be honest with yourself: you want this to have happened. You want your enemies to be afraid of the (again, literal) secret police wandering the streets in pursuit of your personal political goals. And if the price for that is a few unconstitutional executions, you're willing to pay it and excuse it on the internet.
But you don't really believe this was legitimate law enforcement behavior. No one does. Real civil societies don't accept summary executions of probably-asshole probably-protesters who probably-obstruct visa check operations.
You are ascribing a hell of a lot of motivation to me just for stating common and frankly well known facts about whether or not LEOs can detain people.
If you don’t like the way the law works, do something to change it, don’t just pontificate on the internet because you are upset.
I ask again: what crime do you think she was being detained to prevent? I'm inferring your motivation from your refusal to engage on the subject you claim to be debating.
ICE has had a press conference and explained why their agents approached the car and wanted to detain that driver. They are claiming obstruction of their operations (18 U.S.C. § 111). It doesn’t matter what I think or what you think, only what they thought and what the subsequent other evidence substantiates either validating their claim or not and what a potential jury might decide on the subject.
I’ve explained elsewhere on this HN thread what I observed from the videos we have all seen by now and why I think it will be difficult to waive the qualified immunity of the officer to pursue criminal charges against him. This particular spur of the thread is about whether or not law enforcement can detain people. They have the force and capability to detain, and they have case law that allows it.
The preemptive "It doesn’t matter what I think or what you think" tells us that you know damn well this wasn't legal or appropriate. I stand by my analysis, you are defending this madness on the internet not because you know it's correct on principle but because you want it to be correct.
You want to live in a world where your enemies are afraid of gestapo-like goon squads who will shoot them in the face if they do the wrong thing. You think they deserve it, that the work of the goons is important and worth some violence to enable, and surely that such violence would never be used inappropriately.
Just be clear in your own mind what you're cheering for. It's not new. Historically this never ends at plausibly-justified-minutiae about law enforcement practice.
Whatever ICE claims, the murderer broke protocol and whatever excuse they’ll try, surely “feared for his life” doesn’t count.
Operating manuals state that officers cannot use deadly force to stop a vehicle, even if the vehicle itself is used as a weapon, if they can get out of its way instead.
This is clearly a case of an untrained, unhinged, far-right militant, itching for an opportunity to fire and kill a “fucking bitch” (seems ICE is leaving the indefensible idiot out to dry, and prepared the ground by releasing the video from the murderer’s phone).
It doesn't matter to the current conversation and it feels more like you're trying to create a distraction from the core of the issue being discussed than inquiring in good faith. If you truly desire such information so adamantly, you can easily do a search for it elsewhere without derailing the discussion here.
