By Attorney Honey Leech: There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I'd like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense At best, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty. The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were: Authorized under federal law; and "Necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties. If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case "removed" to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent's actions met the "necessary and proper" standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact. Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993) Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts: Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life. Holding (paraphrased): “An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.” Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth Circuit Facts: Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired. Holding: An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force. Key language: The court emphasized that reasonableness includes the officer’s own tactical decisions leading up to the shooting. Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2001) Eighth Circuit Key point: The court rejected summary judgment for officers where evidence showed the officer moved into the vehicle’s path, creating the perceived threat. Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) Third Circuit Facts: Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver. Holding: The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation. Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008) Holding: Deadly force may be unconstitutional where: The officer fired into a moving vehicle The officer could have stepped aside The threat was self-created The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire. Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Holding: An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle. The Ninth Circuit emphasized tactical disengagement as the constitutional expectation. Training & Policy Alignment (Courts Care About This) Many courts note that modern police training instructs: Do not fire into moving vehicles Do not use deadly force to stop a fleeing car Disengage and contain instead Courts treat violations of training as evidence of unreasonableness, even if not dispositive. Copied and pasted.
By Attorney Honey Leech: There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I'd like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense At best, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty. The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were: Authorized under federal law; and "Necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties. If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case "removed" to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent's actions met the "necessary and proper" standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact. Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993) Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts: Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life. Holding (paraphrased): “An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.” Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth Circuit Facts: Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired. Holding: An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force. Key language: The court emphasized that reasonableness includes the officer’s own tactical decisions leading up to the shooting. Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2001) Eighth Circuit Key point: The court rejected summary judgment for officers where evidence showed the officer moved into the vehicle’s path, creating the perceived threat. Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) Third Circuit Facts: Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver. Holding: The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation. Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008) Holding: Deadly force may be unconstitutional where: The officer fired into a moving vehicle The officer could have stepped aside The threat was self-created The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire. Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Holding: An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle. The Ninth Circuit emphasized tactical disengagement as the constitutional expectation. Training & Policy Alignment (Courts Care About This) Many courts note that modern police training instructs: Do not fire into moving vehicles Do not use deadly force to stop a fleeing car Disengage and contain instead Courts treat violations of training as evidence of unreasonableness, even if not dispositive. Copied and pasted.
Good post. Very informative.
Officers not allowed to shoot at a moving vehicle? Wtf? I suppose they should jump real high instead.
The officer IS allowed to fire into a vehicle when the occupant is using the vehicle as a deadly weapon, as this Woman obviously was. This is shown by video evidence and physical evidence from his hospital examination.....There will be no charges filed....
Surprising how a supposidly smart person lets her emotions overide rationality....
The officer IS allowed to fire into a vehicle when the occupant is using the vehicle as a deadly weapon, as this Woman obviously was. This is shown by video evidence and physical evidence from his hospital examination.....There will be no charges filed....
Surprising how a supposidly smart person lets her emotions overide rationality....
You wouldn't know because you aren't even supposedly smart.
By Attorney Honey Leech: There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I'd like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense At best, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty. The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were: Authorized under federal law; and "Necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties. If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case "removed" to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent's actions met the "necessary and proper" standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact. Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993) Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts: Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life. Holding (paraphrased): “An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.” Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth Circuit Facts: Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired. Holding: An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force. Key language: The court emphasized that reasonableness includes the officer’s own tactical decisions leading up to the shooting. Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2001) Eighth Circuit Key point: The court rejected summary judgment for officers where evidence showed the officer moved into the vehicle’s path, creating the perceived threat. Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) Third Circuit Facts: Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver. Holding: The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation. Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008) Holding: Deadly force may be unconstitutional where: The officer fired into a moving vehicle The officer could have stepped aside The threat was self-created The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire. Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Holding: An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle. The Ninth Circuit emphasized tactical disengagement as the constitutional expectation. Training & Policy Alignment (Courts Care About This) Many courts note that modern police training instructs: Do not fire into moving vehicles Do not use deadly force to stop a fleeing car Disengage and contain instead Courts treat violations of training as evidence of unreasonableness, even if not dispositive. Copied and pasted.
There is a long video that shows the shooter was originally on the right hand rear of the vehicle with the wife. they both walk around the rhs of the stationary vehicle. the wife stops by the passenger door. the car then reverses with the wheels pointing left, this causes the car to point not only in the shooters direction, but brings him square into the middle of the 'aim' of the car as it stops reversing. he is unsighted during most of this, but there is evidene that he did not deliberately place himself there.
He may or may not have known the situation was escalating at that moment since one wooly hat officer seemed much less botheed than the one who went for the door. as the woolly hat officer went for the door, the shooter seemed more concerned about drawing his weapon to support his colleague than his postion relative to the car. he ight have been movign slowly to the left, but his priority was clearly to back up his colleague. seems a reasonable thing to do.
without question, when she put the car into fwd gear and pressed the accelrator, the wheels were pointing left. this is very very clear. its almost the one indisputable thing.
the car unquestionably hit the shooter. interestingly in the blurred video from the far right, it looks like he was hit quite hard and moved a little distance. in the video from behind and left it is hard to see he is hit at all, but the relative position means movement would have been away from the camera so hard to see.
Much of this post is one sided deliberate disinformation presented as absolute fact. context always matters. of course there are circumstances when oyu can shoot a fleeing suspect in the back and / or shoot into a moving car. to pretend this is absolute just discredits the author.
Personally i dont think this incident shuold have happened. both sides made huge mistakes and both the police system and the system of aggravated obstruction of police duties are broken so such incidents are inevitable.
At the end of the day, with the help of our friend Occam's razor; she was where she shouldnt have been, and was there deliberatly, her wife has admitted it. An ice officer was legitimately ordering her to stop and get out of the car. Another ice officer was in front of the car with a drawn weapon to back up the lawful order. She drove towards him. he considered the bar for lethal force was met and opened fire.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Had she just done what most loser middle age nothing happening women do, take a two day running course and start calling yourself coach, this wouldn’t have happened.
But no, she had to take up an idiotic cause of protecting illegal aliens.
Say what you want about Elizabeth Clor but she’s still posting videos of herself waddling down the road in a different outfit every day.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
By Attorney Honey Leech: There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I'd like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense At best, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty. The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were: Authorized under federal law; and "Necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties. If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case "removed" to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent's actions met the "necessary and proper" standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact. Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993) Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts: Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life. Holding (paraphrased): “An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.” Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth Circuit Facts: Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired. Holding: An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force. Key language: The court emphasized that reasonableness includes the officer’s own tactical decisions leading up to the shooting. Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2001) Eighth Circuit Key point: The court rejected summary judgment for officers where evidence showed the officer moved into the vehicle’s path, creating the perceived threat. Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) Third Circuit Facts: Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver. Holding: The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation. Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008) Holding: Deadly force may be unconstitutional where: The officer fired into a moving vehicle The officer could have stepped aside The threat was self-created The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire. Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Holding: An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle. The Ninth Circuit emphasized tactical disengagement as the constitutional expectation. Training & Policy Alignment (Courts Care About This) Many courts note that modern police training instructs: Do not fire into moving vehicles Do not use deadly force to stop a fleeing car Disengage and contain instead Courts treat violations of training as evidence of unreasonableness, even if not dispositive. Copied and pasted.
There is a long video that shows the shooter was originally on the right hand rear of the vehicle with the wife. they both walk around the rhs of the stationary vehicle. the wife stops by the passenger door. the car then reverses with the wheels pointing left, this causes the car to point not only in the shooters direction, but brings him square into the middle of the 'aim' of the car as it stops reversing. he is unsighted during most of this, but there is evidene that he did not deliberately place himself there.
He may or may not have known the situation was escalating at that moment since one wooly hat officer seemed much less botheed than the one who went for the door. as the woolly hat officer went for the door, the shooter seemed more concerned about drawing his weapon to support his colleague than his postion relative to the car. he ight have been movign slowly to the left, but his priority was clearly to back up his colleague. seems a reasonable thing to do.
without question, when she put the car into fwd gear and pressed the accelrator, the wheels were pointing left. this is very very clear. its almost the one indisputable thing.
the car unquestionably hit the shooter. interestingly in the blurred video from the far right, it looks like he was hit quite hard and moved a little distance. in the video from behind and left it is hard to see he is hit at all, but the relative position means movement would have been away from the camera so hard to see.
Much of this post is one sided deliberate disinformation presented as absolute fact. context always matters. of course there are circumstances when oyu can shoot a fleeing suspect in the back and / or shoot into a moving car. to pretend this is absolute just discredits the author.
Personally i dont think this incident shuold have happened. both sides made huge mistakes and both the police system and the system of aggravated obstruction of police duties are broken so such incidents are inevitable.
At the end of the day, with the help of our friend Occam's razor; she was where she shouldnt have been, and was there deliberatly, her wife has admitted it. An ice officer was legitimately ordering her to stop and get out of the car. Another ice officer was in front of the car with a drawn weapon to back up the lawful order. She drove towards him. he considered the bar for lethal force was met and opened fire.
Nice to see a rational person on LR. If you look closely at the shooter immediately after the shooting you can see he's walking with a slight limp, probably from the contact.
Nice to see a rational person on LR. If you look closely at the shooter immediately after the shooting you can see he's walking with a slight limp, probably from the contact.
i'll be perfectly honest, i watched the shooter walk all the way back from the victims car to his car and he didnt appear to limp once. maybe, just maybe he was favouring his left leg and maybe, just maybe in one step he might have had a tiny tiny limp if you were looking really hard or were a physiotherapist, but if you werent looking for a lmp you wouldnt have noticed.
But this was seconds after the shooting and adrenaline does amazing things to a person. there is a supermarket shooting where the perp has clearly been very seriously shot in the lower leg and he hardly notices.
i really dont understand how a shooter drives away from a fatal shooting though.
By Attorney Honey Leech: There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I'd like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense At best, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty. The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were: Authorized under federal law; and "Necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties. If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case "removed" to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent's actions met the "necessary and proper" standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact. Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993) Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts: Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life. Holding (paraphrased): “An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.” Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth Circuit Facts: Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired. Holding: An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force. Key language: The court emphasized that reasonableness includes the officer’s own tactical decisions leading up to the shooting. Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2001) Eighth Circuit Key point: The court rejected summary judgment for officers where evidence showed the officer moved into the vehicle’s path, creating the perceived threat. Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999) Third Circuit Facts: Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver. Holding: The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation. Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008) Holding: Deadly force may be unconstitutional where: The officer fired into a moving vehicle The officer could have stepped aside The threat was self-created The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire. Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Holding: An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle. The Ninth Circuit emphasized tactical disengagement as the constitutional expectation. Training & Policy Alignment (Courts Care About This) Many courts note that modern police training instructs: Do not fire into moving vehicles Do not use deadly force to stop a fleeing car Disengage and contain instead Courts treat violations of training as evidence of unreasonableness, even if not dispositive. Copied and pasted.
Also a lawyer, albeit not a criminal lawyer nor a lawyer practising in the USA.
The issues I see with this analysis are (1) the Supremacy Clause can and will be successfully invoked and (2) the facts of this matter are pretty clearly distinguishable from the case law cited by this poster. The case law cited above suggests that the respective officers either put themselves in a place of danger and/or they could have stepped out of the way of the moving vehicle. I do not think the facts of the matter align with these cases, at least as summarized by the poster.
The Abrams holding seems to be the most compelling, but it is hard to draw a more direct application without having reviewed the entire case.
i'll be perfectly honest, i watched the shooter walk all the way back from the victims car to his car and he didnt appear to limp once. maybe, just maybe he was favouring his left leg and maybe, just maybe in one step he might have had a tiny tiny limp if you were looking really hard or were a physiotherapist, but if you werent looking for a lmp you wouldnt have noticed.
But this was seconds after the shooting and adrenaline does amazing things to a person. there is a supermarket shooting where the perp has clearly been very seriously shot in the lower leg and he hardly notices.
i really dont understand how a shooter drives away from a fatal shooting though.
It looks to me like she was there to just harass law enforcement officers, which is how she was trained in the organization ( army) she was a member of.
And, it looks like she was trying to turn right, probably to go a little ways down the road to re-position the car in order to harass law enforcement again.
They taught her this in the anti-ice organization associated with the social justice school that she sent her kid to.
She chose to be a combatant . So did Ashli Babbitt…. So did Charlie
Maybe Somalia has a military award to be awarded posthumously..” the order of El-shabbab?” ( they certainly have enough money now for awards )
Soldiers for their cause sometimes pay the ultimate price.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
New CNN video from across the street, facing the incident shows shooter exiting grey / silver car. he starts waking down the road, in front of the car, just as woolly hat runs towards door. at the moment she starts reversing, he is NOT in front of the car, but a combination of him continuing walking and her reversing cause him to be directly in front of the car when she stops reversing. there is a tree trunk in way of the actual 'colliseon' and the whole thing is very grainy.
However it is clear, as suspected before, that he is unsighted and probably unaware of the incident as he walks down the road. as he sees his colleague try to open the door he draws his weapon. he is not in front of the vehicle when it starts reversing. the actual shooting is behind the tree too.
it all happens too fast, you cannot say he deliberately put himself in front of the vehicle for the purpose of making her escape only possible through him.
It looks to me like she was there to just harass law enforcement officers, which is how she was trained in the organization ( army) she was a member of.
And, it looks like she was trying to turn right, probably to go a little ways down the road to re-position the car in order to harass law enforcement again.
They taught her this in the anti-ice organization associated with the social justice school that she sent her kid to.
She chose to be a combatant . So did Ashli Babbitt…. So did Charlie
Maybe Somalia has a military award to be awarded posthumously..” the order of El-shabbab?” ( they certainly have enough money now for awards )
Soldiers for their cause sometimes pay the ultimate price.
They eff'ed up. They murdered a pretty, unarmed, young, white woman. Blond even. Hard to smear her as "radicalized" as JD Vance has done
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
