Did Walz just cross a line? Calls for recording ICE.

[Hafar1014]

The people breaking the barrier were not a threat to the people inside, because they had not breeched the barrier, or entered the protected zone.
Ashli Babbit was the first to breech the barrier, to gain entry into the protected zone, and thus was the first and only threat to the people inside. Justifying deadly force to stop (not prevent) the intrusion.
It was reactive not prophylactic.

Babbit was not a threat in any way. She was unarmed and not even close to the cop who shot her. A threat must be imminent. She wasnt even aware of him.
There is no such law that deadly force can be used to stop an intrusion. Serious bodily injury or death must be imminent. That wasnt met.
The castle doctrine cant apply here and even under that the cop is still negligent.

 

[postman]

Babbit was not a threat in any way. She was unarmed and not even close to the cop who shot her. A threat must be imminent. She wasnt even aware of him.
There is no such law that deadly force can be used to stop an intrusion. Serious bodily injury or death must be imminent. That wasnt met.
The castle doctrine cant apply here and even under that the cop is still negligent.

She had entered a secret service protective zone.

Think of it like the castle doctrine.
You are authorized to use deadly force upon someone as soon as they breech the dwelling. You don't have to wait for them to get all the way inside.

 

[postman]

Google AI

Under the Castle Doctrine, an intruder halfway through your door or window is generally considered an unlawful, forced entry, triggering the right to use reasonable, potentially deadly, force to defend your home and yourself, as this act signifies an imminent threat

 

[Hafar1014]

She had entered a secret service protective zone.

Think of it like the castle doctrine.
You are authorized to use deadly force upon someone as soon as they breech the dwelling. You don't have to wait for them to get all the way inside.

A serious threat to bodily injury or death must be imminent. Youre just repeating your mistake.
Castle doctrine only applies to a home owner or that same person in a car or hotel. Not to police in government building.
Wash DC does not have the Castle doctrine or stand your ground laws

Police use of deadly force is legally justified when an officer reasonably believes it's necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others, as established by the "objective reasonableness" standard from Graham v. Connor. This is a high bar, focusing on split-second judgments in tense situations, but laws like California's AB 392 mandate it must be truly "necessary," not just "reasonable," and not used solely to prevent escape. Factors considered include officer training, suspect behavior, weapons, and available non-lethal options.

There was no imminent threat

 

[postman]

A serious threat to bodily injury or death must be imminent. Youre just repeating your mistake.
Castle doctrine only applies to a home owner or that same person in a car or hotel. Not to police in government building.
Wash DC does not have the Castle doctrine or stand your ground laws

Police use of deadly force is legally justified when an officer reasonably believes it's necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others, as established by the "objective reasonableness" standard from Graham v. Connor. This is a high bar, focusing on split-second judgments in tense situations, but laws like California's AB 392 mandate it must be truly "necessary," not just "reasonable," and not used solely to prevent escape. Factors considered include officer training, suspect behavior, weapons, and available non-lethal options.

There was no imminent threat

To repeat

Google AI

Under the Castle Doctrine, an intruder halfway through your door or window is generally considered an unlawful, forced entry, triggering the right to use reasonable, potentially deadly, force to defend your home and yourself, as this act signifies an imminent threat

 

[postman]

Google AI

you do not have to get your whole body inside a structure for it to legally count as an "entry" in a breaking and entering or burglary charge. The law generally requires only that any part of the body (or a tool used to commit a crime inside) crosses the outer boundary or "plane" of the building.

 

[postman]

Therefore Ashli Babbit was guilty of break and entering into a secret service protected zone.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Google AI

you do not have to get your whole body inside a structure for it to legally count as an "entry" in a breaking and entering or burglary charge. The law generally requires only that any part of the body (or a tool used to commit a crime inside) crosses the outer boundary or "plane" of the building.

Link to this law?

 

[Hafar1014]

To repeat

Google AI

Under the Castle Doctrine, an intruder halfway through your door or window is generally considered an unlawful, forced entry, triggering the right to use reasonable, potentially deadly, force to defend your home and yourself, as this act signifies an imminent threat

Wash DC does not have the castle doctrine. The threat must still be imminent. Youre making this up as you go because you have no idea what the law is.
You also dont know what imminent means. Going to happen right now this second.
So in youre interpretation of the castle doctrine which cant aply here is 10 year old breaks into my house and I can shoot him. Or a drunk mistakenly enters my home, or I catch a burglar and he gives up instantly. You dont have a clue

 

[rightwinger]

When Trump is gone the Madam Defarges on the left are going to be going down their lists with a vengeance.

The fact that Walz hasen't been impeached for the fraud by what I hope is the vast number of tax paying honest MN citizens is disappointing to say the least.

You think ICE should not be accountable for their actions?
You think the First Amendment does not apply to ICE?

 

[Hafar1014]

You think ICE should not be accountable for their actions?
You think the First Amendment does not apply to ICE?

Walz should be accountable for his actions, fraud and obstruction of federal law enforcement

 

[rightwinger]

Walz should be accountable for his actions, fraud and obstruction of federal law enforcement

He is

You are welcome to prosecute
You don’t because you know you will lose

 

[postman]

Link to this law?

Burglary Basics - Home Depot EAP | Carelon

The crime of burglary defined, with real-world examples.

hd.carelonwellbeing.com

For example, assume that the police arrest a suspect just as the suspect reaches her arm through an open window. If the other requirements are met, one arm in is sufficient entry to constitute a burglary.

 

[postman]

Walz should be accountable for his actions, fraud and obstruction of federal law enforcement

How does one "obstruct" federal law enforcement, when one isn't within miles of the law enforcement.

Mind control?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Burglary Basics - Home Depot EAP | Carelon

The crime of burglary defined, with real-world examples.

hd.carelonwellbeing.com

For example, assume that the police arrest a suspect just as the suspect reaches her arm through an open window. If the other requirements are met, one arm in is sufficient entry to constitute a burglary.

Your link is not a law. It is a commentary.

 

[postman]

Your link is not a law. It is a commentary.

From a lawyer, who should know what he's talking about.

 

[postman]

Your link is not a law. It is a commentary.

OK here's a better opinion

2016 ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court, State v. Holt, determined that a burglar who only managed to insert their fingertips inside a window screen—without breaking the glass—had committed an illegal entry.

Anthony Holt was convicted of breaking and entering after he began to remove a window screen, and his fingertips penetrated the boundary of the home's interior space before he was interrupted.

In general legal definitions of burglary, "entry" does not need to be the entire body; rather, the slightest penetration of the structure by any part of the body—or by an instrument held by the intruder—is sufficient to constitute an illegal entry

 

[OODA_Loop]

OK here's a better opinion

2016 ruling by the New Mexico Supreme Court, State v. Holt, determined that a burglar who only managed to insert their fingertips inside a window screen—without breaking the glass—had committed an illegal entry.

State Vs Holt perpetrator attempted forced entry by penetrating a window screen. They broke in.

Not analogous to Babbitt

 

[postman]

State Vs Holt perpetrator attempted forced entry by penetrating a window screen. They broke in.

Not analogous to Babbitt

Actually, if you read the notes, there was no actual breaking.

The Case: Anthony Holt was convicted of breaking and entering after he began to remove a window screen, and his fingertips penetrated the boundary of the home's interior space before he was interrupted.

Ashli Babbit was crawling through the broken window.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Actually, if you read the notes, there was no actual breaking.

The Case: Anthony Holt was convicted of breaking and entering after he began to remove a window screen, and his fingertips penetrated the boundary of the home's interior space before he was interrupted.

Ashli Babbit was crawling through the broken window.

Removing a window screen constitutes a break-in.