S2N
-
Posts
580 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Immigration Timeline & Photos
S2N's Achievements
Recent Profile Visitors
2,445 profile views
-
TBoneTX reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
speedster reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
speedster reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
S2N reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
Yeah, these are the details that matter. Will be following how it plays out. -
S2N reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
Dashinka reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
Dashinka reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
As a reasonable non-law enforcement observer, to me it looked like the car was swerving uncontrollably after the first shot because she’d been knocked out and he kept firing. Whether that counts as incapacitated is a question of fact, not law, and I don’t have all the facts. No one does. Which is what I keep trying to point out. The case law is a lot more complicated than Woman drives car towards LEO, LEO keeps shooting until he thinks he’s safe again, and since this is likely to end up as a civil case against DHS and nothing will come of it for him, the facts and specifics really matter and will determine what happens in the courts.
-
The real question.
-
S2N reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
Ban Hammer reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
You don’t know that. It’s your guess, but you don’t know. Anyway; my point wasn’t that he’s liable. My point was that courts can and do analyze multiple shots over a short period as separate instances of force.
-
And we currently don’t have video of how she was when she was inside the car. We don’t know if she was incapacitated.
-
Sure; I never claimed otherwise. The point of that ruling (in the 9th Circuit) was when there’s a question of fact as to if continued shooting was justified, it’s for a jury to analyze. The question of fact here would be whether or not when the officer was on the side of the car, the suspect was incapacitated. A reasonable observer is going to see two “volleys” in this case. The first shot and the second round. The Estate could argue that to a judge.
-
Estate of Hernandez v. City of Los Angeles Analyzed three different uses of force on the same suspect. Held that the first two were justified but whether or not the third was justified was a matter of fact for a jury to decide because it was a matter of established law that continuing to shoot an incapacitated suspect violates the Fourth Amendment. 9th circuit, so not applicable to Minnesota, but courts can and do analyze shots as distinct instances (in the case the court analyzed per “volley” of shots) Edit to add: for context, the shooting took place over six seconds (per the PDF opinion) and the Court of Appeals analyzed each volley of the six second encounter.
-
Federal courts have analyzed per round of shots fired in civil cases of police conduct in the past. It wouldn’t be guilty or not guilty in a criminal sense, but a court could (and probably would given the facts of this case) analyze whether the shot in front of the car was justified, and then analyze whether the shots on the side were. A criminal court more than anything it depends on how the judge instructs the jury and what they’re tasked with finding. A court could instruct the jury to follow the same analysis mentioned above. It’d still be one count, but they could have separate questions to answer before finding a verdict. It could also be instructed to conclude as a whole. But there’s also no way this ever goes criminal no matter what the facts are given the current climate.
-
S2N reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
I agree that this isn’t a clear cut clean shot and that all of the videos taken together really don’t paint a clear picture. Under this DOJ you’re unlikely to get an investigation that’s not full of talking points though or any administrative action, and virtually no shot of charges. The question is how it would play out in civil court more than anything and qualified immunity is very strong. The surviving wife has a shot on the medical care point, though. Pretty sure qualified immunity wouldn’t cover that, and there’s legions of cases involving prisons and cops with dying people and not providing sufficient care. I don’t see how telling a doctor with a medical kit “you can’t approach the dying lady” plays well with any jury, even if there’s some internal ICE or DOJ policy on it.
-
S2N reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
If it goes to civil court, they would likely be analyzed as two separate instances. If the videos correct, they’d need to justify the second round of shots either as reasonable or “unreasonable but no court has ever ruled that an immigration officer who has already jumped out of the way of a car can’t shoot twice more so even while he has civil immunity, future immigration officers who jump out of the way of cars and keep firing won’t.” [which is what qualified immunity more or less does] I think a civil court would likely go for the second option. On denying the doctor access point, there’s likely some Duty of Care precedent they can cite to get it to a jury. DHS would likely settle on behalf of all of them before it gets to that point to avoid a clear precedent, though.
-
Thanks for sharing. Let’s see if it checks out. Looks pretty inconsistent with the other videos that have been verified, but if it’s real, that’d likely justify the first shot in my mind. Still would leave question of the other two shots and denying the doctor access, but it would at least make a starting point of the conversation everyone could agree on.
-
If she die in fact hit him (which I maintain is unclear), agree it’s incredibly stupid and your comment is the practical outcome of it. I also think the more likely outcome than anything is that this goes to civil court, and we’ll see how strong the qualified immunity protections are before it gets to a civil jury. They’ll likely get the shooting thrown out on qualified immunity, and then the only question that will go to trial will be if law enforcement can prevent immediate medical care to a person who has been shot. Thats just my prognosticating though.
-
The theory is that the priorities of local cops are different than the federal government: local cops care a lot more about victims from local crime being willing to be witnesses in court, and Stephen Miller doesn’t, to be blunt. There’s probably a better middle way beyond deputizing local LE to enforce immigration, which I think would likely lead to unintended negative consequences, and having local cops more or less do nothing.
-
Dashinka reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
S2N reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
Possibly, but we also don’t see that in the video. It could also be him jumping out of the way, which is what it looks like some of the other videos show. We’re making a ton of assumptions here off an incomplete picture.
-
Ban Hammer reacted to a post in a topic:
Minneapolis Shooting [spelling in title corrected]
-
I keep saying this, but once it’s reported by reliable sources, I’ll be the first to admit that he was struck. With all the misinformation online right now, I don’t really put much faith in videos until they’ve been validated. It could be this was completely justified, but even if he was struck that doesn’t necessarily mean that it was. We just need to let this play out.