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

[postman]

Also, you are operating from the luxury of watching a video you can pause, rewind and replay as often as you like, zooming in on the tires of the car, looking at how the steering wheel was turned, etc. The officer didn't have that luxury. If, as reports indicate, he was struck hard enough to cause internal bleeding, he very likely was in justified fear of his life and made a split-second decision to fire. Again, you have the luxury of time and coffee to examine the video. He did not.

Graham v. Connor | 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

holding that such actions must be judged under the Fourth Amendment, balancing the intrusion on the individual against the government's interests, considering factors like the crime's severity, threat level, and resistance, rather than the officer's subjective intent.

 

[Nostra]

And when they catch up to them, they are allowed to ram their car, push it into a ditch, flip it over, etc. Consider as well, a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime is a danger to other cars on the road as much as a meth addict running from a traffic stop. Why would they purposely allow a suspect who has already assaulted LE to put other lives in danger on the road? No, they get the suspect OUT of the car, not allow them to stay in it.

Postman has watched too many old westerns where they shoot the gun out of the other guy's hand.

No connection to reality.

 

[postman]

Bring the video of her being shot in the back.

GO!

In this case back of the head.

 

[hadit]

Wasn't much "attending", as he was released within hours.

Minor or major is irrelevant to the assault. You get charged with assault whether you slap a cop in the face or punch him in the nads.

 

[Nostra]

Graham v. Connor | 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

holding that such actions must be judged under the Fourth Amendment, balancing the intrusion on the individual against the government's interests, considering factors like the crime's severity, threat level, and resistance, rather than the officer's subjective intent.

MN Statute 609.66, signed by TAmpon.

Look it up and get educated.

 

[hadit]

Postman has watched too many old westerns where they shoot the gun out of the other guy's hand.

No connection to reality.

And that's why you never resist arrest. It's stupid to do so. Don't try to run, don't try to fight, you'll only get hurt worse.

 

[Nostra]

In this case back of the head.

uh-oh.............we have another story change. How many does that make so far, about a dozen?

Prove she was shot in the back of the head. Then prove she didn't turn her head.

 

[hadit]

Graham v. Connor | 490 U.S. 386 (1989)

holding that such actions must be judged under the Fourth Amendment, balancing the intrusion on the individual against the government's interests, considering factors like the crime's severity, threat level, and resistance, rather than the officer's subjective intent.

Then an investigation and trial are warranted. Trying and sentencing the cop in the court of public opinion is only going to get somebody else killed.

 

[Nostra]

And that's why you never resist arrest. It's stupid to do so. Don't try to run, don't try to fight, you'll only get hurt worse.

They didn't cover that in her brainwashing training.

 

[OldFlame]

Postman has watched too many old westerns where they shoot the gun out of the other guy's hand.

No connection to reality.

Postman has successfully made the thread about yet again defending the ICE agent involved in the shooting incident instead of about the topic of the thread.

 

[DennisPTate]

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.

There are at least two major sides to the issue of police officers or ICE agents being recorded. Those recordings could turn out to be extremely useful as evidence that somebody driving a van certainly seemed to be wanting to DRIVE OVER the ICE agents that were walking near her van?

In my opinion, more and more "evidence" from more than one source could turn out to usually be good news for honest ICE agents who are simply attempting to perform their duties. In my opinion those rare cases where the video footage shows that an ICE agent may have acted in the wrong way, is actually good news in at least some ways because there are people who technically are part of the Trump administration BUT THEIR GOAL IS TO MAKE President Trump and his administration LOOK BAD...... OR EVEN AWFUL!?

 

[postman]

And when they catch up to them, they are allowed to ram their car, push it into a ditch, flip it over, etc. Consider as well, a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime is a danger to other cars on the road as much as a meth addict running from a traffic stop. Why would they purposely allow a suspect who has already assaulted LE to put other lives in danger on the road? No, they get the suspect OUT of the car, not allow them to stay in it.

Actually they aren't allowed to intentionally "flip it over", that would be excessive use of force.

The other maneuvers, like ramming etc. are just like they're allowed to tackle a fleeing suspect.

And because there are many other methods of catching a fleeing suspect, other than through deadly force, they can call out an APB, set up roadblocks, or even pursue them with drones, instead of a high speed police chase, that would be more people in danger than the original incident.

 

[martybegan]

Nope, that would be an ICE regulation. The head of the agency could mandate it. Just like the head of the FBI policy notice did.

And the workers union would have to agree with it as part of any collective bargaining agreement.

The FBI's policy notice has to have some legislative backing.

 

[martybegan]

Shot in the act of breaking and entering a restricted area.

Hanging in a window.

it would have made far more sense for Byrd to shoot the people actively breaking the barrier.

 

[postman]

Postman has successfully made the thread about yet again defending the ICE agent involved in the shooting incident instead of about the topic of the thread.

If you want to stick to the OP.
The first amendment gives people the right to video in all public locations, unless otherwise restricted by law.

See, Now you can't make an argument against what Waltz said, since it's perfectly legal.

 

[Nostra]

If you want to stick to the OP.
The first amendment gives people the right to video in all public locations, unless otherwise restricted by law.

See, Now you can't make an argument against what Waltz said, since it's perfectly legal.

He never claimed it was illegal, dumbass.

 

[martybegan]

The Trump administration says they have absolute immunity. Isn't that creating a dangerous situation where ICE agents now believe they can do whatever they want without repercussions?

Citizens don't have a right to interfere with law enforcement. The problem is that law enforcement thinks they get to define what constitutes interference to mean whatever they want.

They have immunity when they are performing their federal duties, and any issue regarding if they were would be a federal matter.

They have immunity from State prosecution under the supremacy clause, either due to performing their federal duties, or the feds have jurisdiction to try them if they do something when the fact of it being a duty comes into question.

We all can see the interference, you idiots just ignore it.

Using your vehicle to block traffic isn't protesting, it's interfering. Especially when you do so perpendicular to the flow of traffic.

 

[OldFlame]

If you want to stick to the OP.
The first amendment gives people the right to video in all public locations, unless otherwise restricted by law.

See, Now you can't make an argument against what Waltz said, since it's perfectly legal.

The OP was not about what he said being illegal, so that's not the subject either.

 

[Zincwarrior]

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.

Videoing local, state, and federal agents is completely legal in line with the First Amendment.

 

[Nostra]

Videoing local, state, and federal agents is completely legal in line with the First Amendment.

Who said it wasn't?