Breaking: Woman shot while trying to kill ICE agents in Minnesota

[Delldude]

Police experts disagree with your boot-licking opinion. Thanks for sharing though.

Legal exspurts say different.

 

[Bitterhook]

You’re still complaining and I still don’t care.

You don't need to keep proving that no one should take you seriously because you're just here to sling shit in some stupid game. you asshat. If you don't care then feel free to shut the **** up as I mentioned, well, pages ago.

I also mentioned it was obvious you really didn't care, because that's what "uncaring" means, you asshat.

 

[Care4all]

People are misrepresenting and misinterpreting Barnes v Felix

one interesting part is:
The Court does not address a separate question about whether or
how an officer’s own “creation of a dangerous situation” factors into the
reasonableness analysis. The courts below never confronted that is-
sue, and it was not the basis of the petition for certiorari. Pp. 4–9.
91 F. 4th 393, vacated and remanded.

AI Overview: Courts asked to question about whether or how an officer’s own actions “create a dangerous situation”

In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly declined to answer the question of whether or how an officer’s own "creation of a dangerous situation" factors into the Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis for excessive force. While the Court rejected the "moment of threat" rule that ignored prior events, it left open the specific role of pre-seizure officer tactics.

Here is a breakdown of the current legal landscape on "officer-created jeopardy" and "creation of a dangerous situation":

1. The Barnes v. Felix (2025) Impact

In Barnes v. Felix (May 2025), the Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit ruling that only considered the two seconds of danger an officer faced while clinging to a moving car, ignoring the officer's prior actions.

Rejection of "Moment of Threat": The Court established that the Fourth Amendment requires a "totality of the circumstances" analysis, which includes looking at events leading up to the use of force.

Open Question: The Court specifically noted it did not address "whether or how an officer's own 'creation of a dangerous situation' factors into the reasonableness analysis," as that issue was not properly before it.

2. "Officer-Created Jeopardy" Argument

This theory, gaining traction in litigation, argues that if an officer’s unconstitutional or reckless actions (e.g., unnecessary, proactive tactical mistakes) create the danger that requires them to use force, they should lose the right to claim self-defense.

The Conflict: Proponents argue this encourages accountability. Critics argue it forces courts to second-guess split-second, high-stress tactical decisions in hindsight.

Split in Lower Courts: Prior to Barnes, there was a divide where some circuits (like the Fifth) used a narrow "moment of threat" rule, while others included earlier, relevant conduct.

3. County of Los Angeles v. Mendez (2017)

In a similar vein, Mendez rejected the Ninth Circuit's "provocation rule".

The Rule: The "provocation rule" had allowed officers to be held liable for an otherwise reasonable use of force if they "provoked" the incident through an earlier, independent constitutional violation (e.g., entering a home without a warrant).

The Rejection: The Supreme Court held that this improperly "conflates distinct Fourth Amendment claims" and that the proper approach is to focus on whether the force used was reasonable at the time, not whether it was preceded by a separate violation.

4. Current Legal Standards

While the Supreme Court has not fully defined the "creation of a danger" rule, current law operates under these guidelines:

Totality of the Circumstances: Courts must look at the whole picture, not just the instant of the shooting.

Objectively Reasonable: The force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, without 20/20
hindsight.

Qualified Immunity: Even if an officer’s actions contributed to a dangerous situation, they are generally shielded from liability unless they violated a "clearly established" constitutional right.

No Duty to Retreat: Generally, an officer placing himself in a dangerous situation does not alone forfeit the right to use reasonable force to protect themselves.

Barnes v. Felix ensures that officers' pre-seizure actions can be considered, but it does not provide a definitive rule on when those actions constitute a "creation of a danger" that makes the subsequent use of force unconstitutional.

Yes, I know they made no ruling on Felix's reasonableness because that was not why the case made it to their court. The question of what can be used to determine whether the officer's actions were reasonable and whether another cop would make the same determination of the threat, was changed. And the whole circumstance of the incident had to be used and not just the seconds before the officer fired only....as it once was....!

 

[Delldude]

Yes, I know they made no ruling on Felix's reasonableness because that was not why the case made it to their court. The question of what can be used to determine whether the officer's actions were reasonable and whether another cop would make the same determination of the threat, was changed. And the whole circumstance of the incident had to be used and not just the seconds before the officer fired only....as it once was....!

When you going to post that regulation you commented on?

 

[XponentialChaos]

“[E]ven if the woman was mainly trying to get away (which is what it looks like to me), she was engaged in an actionable assault on a federal officer, a felony under Section 111 of the federal penal code,” McCarthy wrote in a piece for National Review.
_______
“Even if you believe, as I’m inclined to believe based on what we’ve seen so far, that the woman was just trying to get away, she did so by swiping the car in the agent’s direction,” the former prosecutor continued. “She may not have intended to run him over, but she sure didn’t appear to be trying to avoid running him over if that was necessary to escape.”
________
As for the ICE agent who shot and killed Good, he is unlikely to face charges because regardless of the driver’s intention, the officer’s “life was jeopardized” and his use of force was justified, according to McCarthy.

“It is settled Fourth Amendment law that a police officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect if he has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others,” he wrote.

“Here, I believe the driver was in the act of committing a dangerous assault when the agent opened fire,” McCarthy continued. “And the driver’s reckless operation of the vehicle, coupled with the fact that she was heedless of harming armed law enforcement agents as they were carrying out their official duties, underscores that it was reasonable to believe she posed a serious threat to the agents and others.”
_________
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy allows officers to use deadly force against fleeing subjects when their actions pose a threat to law enforcement officers or civilians.

Under the policy, federal agents are authorized to use deadly force when dealing with fleeing suspects if they have “a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm” to others, and “such force is necessary to prevent escape.”

McCarthy further noted that an investigation into the shooting launched by Minnesota Democrats will likely go nowhere.

“The feds will not cooperate in the investigation. If state law enforcement brings charges, the federal government will seek to have the case removed to federal court,” he wrote.

Legal experts weigh in on deadly Minneapolis ICE shooting — and whether charges are possible

“[E]ven if the woman was mainly trying to get away (which is what it looks like to me), she was engaged in an actionable assault on a federal officer, a felony under Section 111 of the federal pena…

nypost.com

Yea, legally, I don’t know if the charges are going to stick or not. Could go either way in my opinion.

I think he put himself in a poor position, and contributed to that disaster. He could have handled it differently, but he may be legally protected in the way he poorly handled it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You don't need to keep proving that no one should take you seriously because you're just here to sling shit in some stupid game. you asshat. If you don't care then feel free to shut the **** up as I mentioned, well, pages ago.

I also mentioned it was obvious you really didn't care, because that's what "uncaring" means, you asshat.

Cool. Don’t care.

 

[Bitterhook]

Yes, I know they made no ruling on Felix's reasonableness because that was not why the case made it to their court. The question of what can be used to determine whether the officer's actions were reasonable and whether another cop would make the same determination of the threat, was changed. And the whole circumstance of the incident had to be used and not just the seconds before the officer fired only....as it once was....!

You know, I am really okay with that, as long as people understand that events that happen after the decision is made can in no way possibly affect anything in regard to what was applicable when the decision was made.

 

[DukeU]

Right, because we should just take it as a part of American life.

You have to lay in the bed you make.

 

[Bitterhook]

Cool. Don’t care.

We already established that.
Now if you could just reduce your useless posts by a few more words, we wouldn't need to cover it again.

You're almost there.

 

[Delldude]

Yea, legally, I don’t know if the charges are going to stick or not. Could go either way in my opinion.

I think he put himself in a poor position, and contributed to that disaster. He could have handled it differently, but he may be legally protected in the way he poorly handled it.

Lol.....das Spinmeister.

Told you, you could write for the media......

 

[XponentialChaos]

We already established that.
Now if you could just reduce your useless posts by a few more words, we wouldn't need to cover it again.

You're almost there.

Your suggestion has been noted and disregarded.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

lol and there you have it.

Oops...

 

[Bitterhook]

Your suggestion has been noted and disregarded.

What a shame, so close and you blew it, that's more words not less.

But please, tell us more about whatever nonsense is of note or importance to you, because it is obvious you have completely disregarded and discarded the idea of contributing anything worthwhile, asshat.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Oops...

?

 

[Dirk the Daring]

He was definitely hit. My point is when they tell you to get out of the car you get out of the ******* car. If my wife went there to protest we would be divorced. Take care of your kids. Don’t antagonize law enforcement officers on a ******* work day. This is where you and I part ways on being polite. Our 1st amendment only allows for peaceful protests. Once you get antagonistic it’s everything goes. No mercy.

One second... yep, there it is. Black and white.

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What a shame, so close and you blew it, that's more words not less.

But please, tell us more about whatever nonsense is of note or importance to you, because it is obvious you have completely disregarded the idea of contributing anything worthwhile, asshat.

I should strive to earn your approval because…?

 

[OODA_Loop]

They were one and the same in this case

They were indiscernible in the instant.

 

[Bitterhook]

I should care about your approval because…?

What would ever give you that stupid idea, because I more than suggested you are a completely foolish, somewhat ignorant, and pathetically uncaring asshat.

You obviously have problems with comprehension.

 

[XponentialChaos]

What would ever give you that stupid idea, because I more than suggested you are a completely foolish, somewhat ignorant, and pathetically uncaring asshat.

You obviously have problems with comprehension.

Neat. I’m not interested in the opinion of some random idiot. Thanks for sharing though.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Ashli Babbit had no weapon. Renee Good had a lethal weapon and was in the process of using it against a law officer.

I saw the same videos I didn't see what you saw

You see the comparison. Awesome!

Yes they both made very bad mistakes. I’m glad we agree.

Finally a MAGA who admits that Babbitt fucked around and found out.

We don't agree. Unless you b live neither should have been shot, but both should have been arrested