1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

18 USC 111

(a)In General.—Whoever—

(1)

forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or

(2)

forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service,

shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b)Enhanced Penalty.—

Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(c)Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.—

There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.

Guess you are wrong, again. Looks like she was shot while committing a felony.

for the statute to be enforce it requires ICE to be conducting their assigned duties which they were not. read some more and you'll eventually get there.

7 minutes ago, Dan O said:

for the statute to be enforce it requires ICE to be conducting their assigned duties which they were not. read some more and you'll eventually get there.

Show us the law that says "assigned" duties LOL.

Or you can give up before you look even more ignorant

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

18 USC 111

(a)In General.—Whoever—

(1)

forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or

(2)

forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service,

shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

(b)Enhanced Penalty.—

Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(c)Extraterritorial Jurisdiction.—

There is extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct prohibited by this section.

Guess you are wrong, again. Looks like she was shot while committing a felony.

here's the information you conveniently left out since ICE had no authority to contact the woman they killed. : extraction from Chatgpt:

🚨 When ICE Can Stop or Question Someone

These are the only situations where ICE has legal authority to stop or confront someone in public or in a vehicle:

1️⃣ They have reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation

• ICE can briefly stop someone if they have specific, articulable facts suggesting the person is violating immigration law.

• This is similar to a “Terry stop,” but applies only to immigration matters.

Important: Immigration violations are civil, not criminal. A U.S. citizen cannot commit a civil immigration violation.

➡️ So ICE cannot legally stop a U.S. citizen on this basis.

2️⃣ They are assisting local police during a lawful stop

ICE may approach or question someone if:

• Local police have already made a lawful traffic stop, AND

• ICE is assisting or piggybacking on that stop.

ICE cannot initiate the stop themselves unless they have their own lawful basis.

3️⃣ They have an administrative or judicial warrant

ICE has two types of warrants:

Administrative warrants (I‑200, I‑205)

• Signed by ICE supervisors, not judges.

• Do not authorize traffic stops or entry into homes.

• Only allow ICE to arrest the named person.

Judicial warrants

• Signed by a federal judge.

• Allow ICE to arrest or search in the same way as other federal law enforcement.

➡️ Neither type allows ICE to stop random drivers or confront citizens without cause.

4️⃣ They are conducting a targeted operation on a specific individual

During a planned enforcement action, ICE may:

• Approach a vehicle if they believe the targeted person is inside.

• Conduct surveillance or follow a vehicle.

But they still need reasonable suspicion tied to the target.

➡️ They cannot stop unrelated people or citizens who are not targets.

❌ When ICE Cannot Stop or Confront Someone

According to the Star Tribune’s legal FAQ on ICE authority:

❌ ICE cannot conduct random traffic stops.

They are not highway patrol and have no general policing authority.

❌ ICE cannot stop someone just to ask about immigration status.

They need reasonable suspicion of a violation.

❌ ICE cannot detain a U.S. citizen for immigration reasons.

Citizens are not subject to immigration enforcement.

❌ ICE cannot force you to answer questions.

You have the right to remain silent.

❌ ICE cannot enter a home or private property without consent or a judicial warrant.

🧭 Summary Table

Situation	Can ICE Act?	Why
Random traffic stop	❌ No	No general policing authority
Stop a U.S. citizen	❌ No	Citizens cannot violate immigration law
Assist police during lawful stop	✔️ Yes	Must be secondary to police authority
Targeted operation for a specific person	✔️ Limited	Must have reasonable suspicion the target is present
Administrative warrant	✔️ Limited	Only for named person; no traffic-stop authority
Judicial warrant	✔️ Yes	Full federal authority

If you want, I can also explain:

• How ICE’s authority differs from Border Patrol

• What “reasonable suspicion” means in immigration law

• What rights a person has during an ICE encounter

• How this applies to the Minneapolis shooting case

so given this criteria what was the authority of ice to cofront and attempt to detain the woamn they shot in minnesota

Below is the clearest, citation‑supported answer possible from the reporting you and I have already pulled together.

🟦 Summary

Based on all available reporting, there is no publicly documented legal authority that would have allowed ICE to confront or detain Renee Good specifically. The articles describe ICE conducting a targeted immigration operation, but none state that Good was a target, a suspect, or connected to any immigration violation. Under the legal criteria you listed, ICE would have no lawful basis to stop, detain, or confront a U.S. citizen not suspected of a crime.

🟦 What the reporting confirms

1. ICE was conducting a federal immigration operation

Multiple outlets confirm ICE agents were in Minneapolis as part of a large-scale immigration crackdown.

2. Renee Good was a U.S. citizen

This is confirmed by USA Today and CBS Minnesota.

3. There is no reporting that she was a target of the operation

None of the sources indicate:

• she was suspected of an immigration violation

• she was named in a warrant

• she was associated with the target of the operation

4. The confrontation occurred when she was in her vehicle near ICE vehicles

Axios and MPR News describe the confrontation happening between vehicles near 34th & Portland.

🟦 Applying the legal criteria to the facts

Below is the legal framework from the Star Tribune’s FAQ on ICE authority:

Legal Basis for ICE Action	Applies to Good?	Why
Reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation	❌ No	She was a U.S. citizen; citizens cannot commit civil immigration violations.
Assisting police during a lawful stop	❌ No	No police stop was occurring.
Administrative warrant (I‑200/I‑205)	❌ No	No reporting that she was named in any warrant.
Judicial warrant	❌ No	No reporting of any judicial warrant involving her.
Targeted operation for a specific individual	❌ No	No reporting that she was the target or connected to the target.

Conclusion: Under the legal criteria, ICE had no immigration‑related authority to confront or detain her.

🟦 So what authority DID ICE claim?

The federal government has not publicly identified any specific legal basis for confronting Good.

The only federal claim made so far is self‑defense after the confrontation had already begun, not a justification for initiating the encounter.

• DHS claims she “attempted to run over agents”.

• Eyewitnesses dispute this and say she posed “no threat”.

Crucially: Self‑defense explains the use of force, not the authority to initiate the stop.

🟦 Final Answer

Based on all available reporting, ICE had no documented legal authority to confront or attempt to detain Renee Good. She was a U.S. citizen, not suspected of any immigration violation, not named in a warrant, and not part of a lawful police stop. Nothing in the reporting provides a legal basis that fits within ICE’s limited statutory powers.

How stupid does one have to be to think ICE stopped the car?

11 minutes ago, Dan O said:

here's the information you conveniently left out since ICE had no authority to contact the woman they killed. : extraction from Chatgpt:

🚨 When ICE Can Stop or Question Someone

These are the only situations where ICE has legal authority to stop or confront someone in public or in a vehicle:

1️⃣ They have reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation

• ICE can briefly stop someone if they have specific, articulable facts suggesting the person is violating immigration law.

• This is similar to a “Terry stop,” but applies only to immigration matters.

Important: Immigration violations are civil, not criminal. A U.S. citizen cannot commit a civil immigration violation.

➡️ So ICE cannot legally stop a U.S. citizen on this basis.

2️⃣ They are assisting local police during a lawful stop

ICE may approach or question someone if:

• Local police have already made a lawful traffic stop, AND

• ICE is assisting or piggybacking on that stop.

ICE cannot initiate the stop themselves unless they have their own lawful basis.

3️⃣ They have an administrative or judicial warrant

ICE has two types of warrants:

Administrative warrants (I‑200, I‑205)

• Signed by ICE supervisors, not judges.

• Do not authorize traffic stops or entry into homes.

• Only allow ICE to arrest the named person.

Judicial warrants

• Signed by a federal judge.

• Allow ICE to arrest or search in the same way as other federal law enforcement.

➡️ Neither type allows ICE to stop random drivers or confront citizens without cause.

4️⃣ They are conducting a targeted operation on a specific individual

During a planned enforcement action, ICE may:

• Approach a vehicle if they believe the targeted person is inside.

• Conduct surveillance or follow a vehicle.

But they still need reasonable suspicion tied to the target.

➡️ They cannot stop unrelated people or citizens who are not targets.

❌ When ICE Cannot Stop or Confront Someone

According to the Star Tribune’s legal FAQ on ICE authority:

❌ ICE cannot conduct random traffic stops.

They are not highway patrol and have no general policing authority.

❌ ICE cannot stop someone just to ask about immigration status.

They need reasonable suspicion of a violation.

❌ ICE cannot detain a U.S. citizen for immigration reasons.

Citizens are not subject to immigration enforcement.

❌ ICE cannot force you to answer questions.

You have the right to remain silent.

❌ ICE cannot enter a home or private property without consent or a judicial warrant.

🧭 Summary Table

Situation	Can ICE Act?	Why
Random traffic stop	❌ No	No general policing authority
Stop a U.S. citizen	❌ No	Citizens cannot violate immigration law
Assist police during lawful stop	✔️ Yes	Must be secondary to police authority
Targeted operation for a specific person	✔️ Limited	Must have reasonable suspicion the target is present
Administrative warrant	✔️ Limited	Only for named person; no traffic-stop authority
Judicial warrant	✔️ Yes	Full federal authority

If you want, I can also explain:

• How ICE’s authority differs from Border Patrol

• What “reasonable suspicion” means in immigration law

• What rights a person has during an ICE encounter

• How this applies to the Minneapolis shooting case

so given this criteria what was the authority of ice to cofront and attempt to detain the woamn they shot in minnesota

Below is the clearest, citation‑supported answer possible from the reporting you and I have already pulled together.

🟦 Summary

Based on all available reporting, there is no publicly documented legal authority that would have allowed ICE to confront or detain Renee Good specifically. The articles describe ICE conducting a targeted immigration operation, but none state that Good was a target, a suspect, or connected to any immigration violation. Under the legal criteria you listed, ICE would have no lawful basis to stop, detain, or confront a U.S. citizen not suspected of a crime.

🟦 What the reporting confirms

1. ICE was conducting a federal immigration operation

Multiple outlets confirm ICE agents were in Minneapolis as part of a large-scale immigration crackdown.

2. Renee Good was a U.S. citizen

This is confirmed by USA Today and CBS Minnesota.

3. There is no reporting that she was a target of the operation

None of the sources indicate:

• she was suspected of an immigration violation

• she was named in a warrant

• she was associated with the target of the operation

4. The confrontation occurred when she was in her vehicle near ICE vehicles

Axios and MPR News describe the confrontation happening between vehicles near 34th & Portland.

🟦 Applying the legal criteria to the facts

Below is the legal framework from the Star Tribune’s FAQ on ICE authority:

Legal Basis for ICE Action	Applies to Good?	Why
Reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation	❌ No	She was a U.S. citizen; citizens cannot commit civil immigration violations.
Assisting police during a lawful stop	❌ No	No police stop was occurring.
Administrative warrant (I‑200/I‑205)	❌ No	No reporting that she was named in any warrant.
Judicial warrant	❌ No	No reporting of any judicial warrant involving her.
Targeted operation for a specific individual	❌ No	No reporting that she was the target or connected to the target.

Conclusion: Under the legal criteria, ICE had no immigration‑related authority to confront or detain her.

🟦 So what authority DID ICE claim?

The federal government has not publicly identified any specific legal basis for confronting Good.

The only federal claim made so far is self‑defense after the confrontation had already begun, not a justification for initiating the encounter.

• DHS claims she “attempted to run over agents”.

• Eyewitnesses dispute this and say she posed “no threat”.

Crucially: Self‑defense explains the use of force, not the authority to initiate the stop.

🟦 Final Answer

Based on all available reporting, ICE had no documented legal authority to confront or attempt to detain Renee Good. She was a U.S. citizen, not suspected of any immigration violation, not named in a warrant, and not part of a lawful police stop. Nothing in the reporting provides a legal basis that fits within ICE’s limited statutory powers.

How about some case law or statutes LOL.

Chat GPT iss meaningless in a Court. Like your post in a discussion.

Give up, you are embarrassing yourself

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

How about some case law or statutes LOL.

Chat GPT iss meaningless in a Court. Like your post in a discussion.

Give up, you are embarrassing yourself

They're not bright enough to be embarrassed.

5 hours ago, Dan O said:

You are delusional

If you say so.

24 minutes ago, Dan O said:

here's the information you conveniently left out since ICE had no authority to contact the woman they killed. : extraction from Chatgpt:

🚨 When ICE Can Stop or Question Someone

These are the only situations where ICE has legal authority to stop or confront someone in public or in a vehicle:

1️⃣ They have reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation

• ICE can briefly stop someone if they have specific, articulable facts suggesting the person is violating immigration law.

• This is similar to a “Terry stop,” but applies only to immigration matters.

Important: Immigration violations are civil, not criminal. A U.S. citizen cannot commit a civil immigration violation.

➡️ So ICE cannot legally stop a U.S. citizen on this basis.

2️⃣ They are assisting local police during a lawful stop

ICE may approach or question someone if:

• Local police have already made a lawful traffic stop, AND

• ICE is assisting or piggybacking on that stop.

ICE cannot initiate the stop themselves unless they have their own lawful basis.

3️⃣ They have an administrative or judicial warrant

ICE has two types of warrants:

Administrative warrants (I‑200, I‑205)

• Signed by ICE supervisors, not judges.

• Do not authorize traffic stops or entry into homes.

• Only allow ICE to arrest the named person.

Judicial warrants

• Signed by a federal judge.

• Allow ICE to arrest or search in the same way as other federal law enforcement.

➡️ Neither type allows ICE to stop random drivers or confront citizens without cause.

4️⃣ They are conducting a targeted operation on a specific individual

During a planned enforcement action, ICE may:

• Approach a vehicle if they believe the targeted person is inside.

• Conduct surveillance or follow a vehicle.

But they still need reasonable suspicion tied to the target.

➡️ They cannot stop unrelated people or citizens who are not targets.

❌ When ICE Cannot Stop or Confront Someone

According to the Star Tribune’s legal FAQ on ICE authority:

❌ ICE cannot conduct random traffic stops.

They are not highway patrol and have no general policing authority.

❌ ICE cannot stop someone just to ask about immigration status.

They need reasonable suspicion of a violation.

❌ ICE cannot detain a U.S. citizen for immigration reasons.

Citizens are not subject to immigration enforcement.

❌ ICE cannot force you to answer questions.

You have the right to remain silent.

❌ ICE cannot enter a home or private property without consent or a judicial warrant.

🧭 Summary Table

Situation	Can ICE Act?	Why
Random traffic stop	❌ No	No general policing authority
Stop a U.S. citizen	❌ No	Citizens cannot violate immigration law
Assist police during lawful stop	✔️ Yes	Must be secondary to police authority
Targeted operation for a specific person	✔️ Limited	Must have reasonable suspicion the target is present
Administrative warrant	✔️ Limited	Only for named person; no traffic-stop authority
Judicial warrant	✔️ Yes	Full federal authority

If you want, I can also explain:

• How ICE’s authority differs from Border Patrol

• What “reasonable suspicion” means in immigration law

• What rights a person has during an ICE encounter

• How this applies to the Minneapolis shooting case

so given this criteria what was the authority of ice to cofront and attempt to detain the woamn they shot in minnesota

Below is the clearest, citation‑supported answer possible from the reporting you and I have already pulled together.

🟦 Summary

Based on all available reporting, there is no publicly documented legal authority that would have allowed ICE to confront or detain Renee Good specifically. The articles describe ICE conducting a targeted immigration operation, but none state that Good was a target, a suspect, or connected to any immigration violation. Under the legal criteria you listed, ICE would have no lawful basis to stop, detain, or confront a U.S. citizen not suspected of a crime.

🟦 What the reporting confirms

1. ICE was conducting a federal immigration operation

Multiple outlets confirm ICE agents were in Minneapolis as part of a large-scale immigration crackdown.

2. Renee Good was a U.S. citizen

This is confirmed by USA Today and CBS Minnesota.

3. There is no reporting that she was a target of the operation

None of the sources indicate:

• she was suspected of an immigration violation

• she was named in a warrant

• she was associated with the target of the operation

4. The confrontation occurred when she was in her vehicle near ICE vehicles

Axios and MPR News describe the confrontation happening between vehicles near 34th & Portland.

🟦 Applying the legal criteria to the facts

Below is the legal framework from the Star Tribune’s FAQ on ICE authority:

Legal Basis for ICE Action	Applies to Good?	Why
Reasonable suspicion of an immigration violation	❌ No	She was a U.S. citizen; citizens cannot commit civil immigration violations.
Assisting police during a lawful stop	❌ No	No police stop was occurring.
Administrative warrant (I‑200/I‑205)	❌ No	No reporting that she was named in any warrant.
Judicial warrant	❌ No	No reporting of any judicial warrant involving her.
Targeted operation for a specific individual	❌ No	No reporting that she was the target or connected to the target.

Conclusion: Under the legal criteria, ICE had no immigration‑related authority to confront or detain her.

🟦 So what authority DID ICE claim?

The federal government has not publicly identified any specific legal basis for confronting Good.

The only federal claim made so far is self‑defense after the confrontation had already begun, not a justification for initiating the encounter.

• DHS claims she “attempted to run over agents”.

• Eyewitnesses dispute this and say she posed “no threat”.

Crucially: Self‑defense explains the use of force, not the authority to initiate the stop.

🟦 Final Answer

Based on all available reporting, ICE had no documented legal authority to confront or attempt to detain Renee Good. She was a U.S. citizen, not suspected of any immigration violation, not named in a warrant, and not part of a lawful police stop. Nothing in the reporting provides a legal basis that fits within ICE’s limited statutory powers.

Do you have a link to support your phony claims?

5 hours ago, thaibreaker said:

as frightened as she was, drove away, with her wheels turned to the right, out of the way.

Frightened? What a misleading comment.

She was so Frightened that she sat in her car honking her horn over and over bobbing up and down in glee before the shooting. Then she speaks to the officer in a condescending voice when confronted. Showing how scared she was.

Ya she was so scared.

Keeping in mind she initiated the confrontation.

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

They're not bright enough to be embarrassed.

They dont even do their own research. Here is a good starting point:

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-2nd-circuit/1305990.html

UNITED STATES v. HOY (1998)

United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit.

Sorry about the font.

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have a link to support your phony claims?

From the case I cited earlier.

"Section 111 does not define official duties.   Indeed, “[t]here is no bright-line test to define performance of ․ official duties,” Hoffer, 869 F.2d at 125, and “[t]he statutory requirement that a federal official covered by [section 111] must be engaged in the performance of his official duties [is] inherently fluid.”  United States v. Boone, 738 F.2d 763, 765 (6th Cir.1984) (per curiam).   We have held generally that the proper inquiry is “whether the federal agent [was] ‘simply acting within the scope of what the agent is employed to do.   The test is whether the agent [was] acting within that compass or [was] engaging in a personal frolic of [his or her] own.’ ”  Hoffer, 869 F.2d at 126 (quoting United States v. Heliczer, 373 F.2d 241, 245 (2d Cir.1967)).   The question of whether an officer is engaged in an official duty is a factual one and therefore is properly left to the jury.   See id.;   see also Kelley, 850 F.2d at 213."

Emphasis added

The decedent was feloniously violating Section 111. Hopefully we will get some apologies for the lies and slanders directed at this fine Agent doing his duty.

11 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Frightened? What a misleading comment.

She was so Frightened that she sat in her car honking her horn over and over bobbing up and down in glee before the shooting. Then she speaks to the officer in a condescending voice when confronted. Showing how scared she was.

Ya she was so scared.

Keeping in mind she initiated the confrontation.

What a misleading answer..

Have you even seen the video? She was frightened, I would even say terrified, the moment one ICE agent tried to open her door, and THEN she tried to escape from a total unnecessary provocation from the ICE agents. By this time the agent in front had already drawn his weapon.

They had no right to forcefully open her door (to grab her out with power), that was an unlawful act, and a clear violation of the 4th amendment you Americans cherish so much.

11 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

What a misleading answer..

Have you even seen the video? She was frightened, I would even say terrified, the moment one ICE agent tried to open her door, and THEN she tried to escape from a total unnecessary provocation from the ICE agents. By this time the agent in front had already drawn his weapon.

They had no right to forcefully open her door (to grab her out with power), that was an unlawful act, and a clear violation of the 4th amendment you Americans cherish so much.

Its your opinion she was frightened. Her bobbing in the car and honking in glee says otherwise. Which is what she was doing prior to the shooting.

She was the agitator in this situation.

I cant wait for you to reply telling me how im justifying this or some maga slander. Make me proud.

1 minute ago, blaze master said:

Lies.

Also you can keep your guesses to yourself. They are irrelevant.

She was the one who was doing the provocation.

Lies. Guessing she was scared is your own opinion. The video shows otherwise. She instigated the entire situation not the officer.

She was so frightened she was gleefully honking and bobbing in her car before the shooting.

Her smiling and talking condescending to the officer like she did clearly shows a lack of fear.

But keep drinking.

You are talking about the moment PRIOR to the aggressive act from the ICE agents. PRIOR to it. It shows how calm she was, BEFORE it exploded in a second, when they screamed at her to get out of the vehicle, grabbing her door, and drawing weapon. Do I need to explain the timeline one more time?

What a complete disrespectful answer btw. It seems all you MAGA people can do, is throwing insults in the face of others. You have the best leader showing the way there.

"Keep drinking"? Seriously?

36 minutes ago, blaze master said:

She was so Frightened that she sat in her car honking her horn over and over bobbing up and down in glee before the shooting. Then she speaks to the officer in a condescending voice when confronted. Showing how scared she was.

Since when does honking carry death penalty without trial?

Maybe there should be death penalty for people posting garbage on this forum...

4 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

You are talking about the moment PRIOR to the aggressive act from the ICE agents. PRIOR to it. It shows how calm she was, BEFORE it exploded in a second, when they screamed at her to get out of the vehicle, grabbing her door, and drawing weapon. Do I need to explain the timeline one more time?

What a complete disrespectful answer btw. It seems all you MAGA people can do, is throwing insults in the face of others. You have the best leader showing the way there.

"Keep drinking"? Seriously?

Yes seriously.

The weapon was drawn after she pressed on the accelerator.

Thats fact.

3 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

Since when does honking carry death penalty without trial?

Maybe there should be death penalty for people posting garbage on this forum...

Who said that she deserves that ? I didnt say that.Now you're making vague threats.

What i stated is part of the overall story. Are you denying that fact ?

Sad. Stick to the facts.

3 hours ago, Yagoda said:

An ICE agent is a Federal Law Enforcement Officer. Look it up.

Why do you post about legal matters you know nothing of.

Maybe you should 'look it up'. Yes ICE agents are Federal officers. But, only with specific duties and authority related to immigration. They are not authorized to be traffic police. In the Minneapolis case, with a stopped vehicle, they had no authorization to stop their vehicle and interfer with a possible traffic violation. As I said in my earlier post, they should have reorted the vehicle to the Minneapolis traffic police. As Google states:

ICE functions as a federal law enforcement agency with specific authority to enforce U.S. immigration laws within the country's interior. Unlike local police officers, federal immigration agents cannot conduct stops based solely on traffic violations.

This was exactly that, a possible traffic violation--a vehicle blocking the street. ICE had no authority whatsoever to get involved. And, also no legal authority to approach the vehicle, as the agents had no warrant and no evidence of any immigration issue to justify approaching the car. That's the law and the facts--but feel free to ignore both--that's the Trump Way.

Just now, newnative said:

They are not authorized to be traffic police. In the Minneapolis case, with a stopped vehicle, they had no authorization to stop their vehicle and interfer with a possible traffic violation

Look at what you just wrote.

How can they stop a stopped vehicle ? Ice did not atop her vehicle. She was parked on the road for upwards of 3 minutes.

1 minute ago, blaze master said:

Yes seriously.

The weapon was drawn after she pressed on the accelerator.

Thats fact.

No, it wasn't, and it's certainly not a fact. Exactly when the weapon was drawn, is not shown in any of the 4 videos I have seen of the incident. But the first shot came so fast, so if so, he must have been Lucky Luke, drawing faster than his own shadow.

Anyway, it's the escalation which made her terrified, and trying to escape. The agents screaming at her, trying to open her door, heck, I would have been terrified myself, and done the exact same thing, trying to drive away in that situation.

3 minutes ago, newnative said:

federal immigration agents cannot conduct stops based solely on traffic violations.

Well its a good thing ice didnt conduct a stop then eh.

59 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

How about some case law or statutes LOL.

Chat GPT iss meaningless in a Court. Like your post in a discussion.

Give up, you are embarrassing yourself

Seems you fell a bit short in your claims. Deflectiony as usual when you have no proof

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

How about some case law or statutes LOL.

Chat GPT iss meaningless in a Court. Like your post in a discussion.

Give up, you are embarrassing yourself

52 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you have a link to support your phony claims?

Yeah its called the internet and you can look up all kinds of facts

2 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

No, it wasn't, and it's certainly not a fact. Exactly when the weapon was drawn, is not shown in any of the 4 videos I have seen of the incident. But the first shot came so fast, so if so, he must have been Lucky Luke, drawing faster than his own shadow.

Anyway, it's the escalation which made her terrified, and trying to escape. The agents screaming at her, trying to open her door, heck, I would have been terrified myself, and done the exact same thing, trying to drive away in that situation.

Yes there is video of the weapon being drawn. Trying to escape ? You mean listening to her wife tell her

Drive baby drive.

2 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Yes there is video of the weapon being drawn. Trying to escape ? You mean listening to her wife tell her

Drive baby drive.

Link? It must have been already up when the car started to move forward (after backing up).

6 minutes ago, Dan O said:

Seems you fell a bit short in your claims. Deflectiony as usual when you have no proof

Yeah its called the internet and you can look up all kinds of facts

So, as always, no link to facts, I thought not.

Just now, thaibreaker said:

Link? It must have been already up when the car started to move forward (after backing up).

She pressed on the accelerator before the gun was drawn.

Go to around 6:30 timestamp.

So, per the left, ICE can do nothing about anyone that interferes with their enforcement activities.

45 minutes ago, thaibreaker said:

What a misleading answer..

Have you even seen the video? She was frightened, I would even say terrified, the moment one ICE agent tried to open her door, and THEN she tried to escape from a total unnecessary provocation from the ICE agents. By this time the agent in front had already drawn his weapon.

They had no right to forcefully open her door (to grab her out with power), that was an unlawful act, and a clear violation of the 4th amendment you Americans cherish so much.

1. The minute she began following ICE and blocking the road and beeping her horn, she committed a Federal crime.

2. The minute she failed to obey ICE she committed a crime.

3. The minute she gunned the engine she committed a felony

The agents had every right to drag her out of the car and arrest her on the spot for commission of a crime in their presence. She is solely responsible for her death.

The 4th Amendment isnt applicable. You obviously do not understand American law.

19 minutes ago, blaze master said:

Look at what you just wrote.

How can they stop a stopped vehicle ? Ice did not atop her vehicle. She was parked on the road for upwards of 3 minutes.

Nice try. You know exactly what the brief is. ICE has no authority to get involved in a traffic situation, which this was--a vehicle partially blocking traffic. Absolutely nothing to do with ICE. They had no warrant for any occupant of the vehicle and no reason to justify approaching the vehicle. They should have obeyed the law, notified the traffic police, and drove on.

4 minutes ago, newnative said:

He's broken numerous laws

Which ones

4 minutes ago, newnative said:

and has a conviction for rape, plus many convictions for fraud

The American people spoke about that when they elected him

5 minutes ago, newnative said:

Also, clear Constitution violations, the latest with his tariffs bypassing Congress--which the Supreme Court will weigh in on.

And if the Court agrees with him? Are you qualified to judge the nuances of the Tariff arguments?

6 minutes ago, newnative said:

There's ample evidence that he is guilty of breaking the law in trying to overturn the 2020 election;

There is no admissible evidence whatsoever.

In other words, you are just spittlespewing nonsense with no knowledge of what you speak.