OlDawg

Yes. While LEO's operate under fairly static rules, the threats to them are as real as they were to me. The only difference is that my conduct under DOD was regulated differently on each assignment by mission specific Rules of Engagement. So, no interdiction was ever exactly the same from a legal standpoint.

Now we know why Maduro was snatched and brought to the U.S. We needed to have someone with election integrity relook at and monitor our elections.

I think you meant her Super hijab. 😁🧕 The only woman I’ve ever seen that looked good in a hijab was Catherine Bell. Sorry…I digress…

Policy driven = CYA While they may need to refine some policies, I hope they don’t allow the mob to think they can dictate—through illegal actions—policy. I think that would be a major mistake for everyone in the future about any number of issues.

If Mayorkas was able to keep his job while allowing millions of illegals in, I’m not sure why Noem should be impeached for a split second decision made by an officer under duress. To me, it sounds like they’re more worried about collective bargaining rights than the death of their member.

Penalties for Illegally Entering Mexico [Hidden Content]

Reading and understanding are two different things. Understanding can be easily blocked by bias.

Very good read. Makes sense to me, and I actually took the time to look up his referenced cases. Thanks for sharing! I bookmarked his page & gave e-mail for the freebie. Good stuff.

I think this has been a very good discussion about the law. We’ve tried to apply what we know of case law to the current information we have on the tragedy that I think NONE OF US wish had happened. Nothing wrong with a little speculation/scenarios/debate based on news reporting. Otherwise, we’d all just sit around—without a care in the world—and wait for someone to tell us what was right or wrong without ever engaging our own brains. That’s not me. I LIKE using my brain, and trying to understand. Whether I agree or not really isn’t the issue. To me, this discussion has more information that’s relevant in the last 2 or 3 pages than probably 95%+ of the public will ever get.

If they have an existing bond—which many have stair stepped bonds—the length of repayment is just extended. So, it’s kind of a play on wording. Technically, the taxes aren’t increased. The length of time until repayment and taxes could drop because of no bond is extended.

Don’t use @DCT gingko biloba to try to help. It just makes you talk to yourself. 😂 😉 Now, I need to go to Walmart Vision Center and get my progressives adjusted before my teeth fall out…

I believe I’ve read where 4 agents still had their body cams on.

Haven’t seen anything on that yet. It was merely a question based on other reporting. If a big deal was made about him being on medication for a rib injury, they probably weren’t talking about Tylenol.

According to the preliminary investigative report, he was in the street, impeding LEO’s, and refused to move. In other words, committing a felony. Does that in itself justify shooting? I’d say a definite ‘No.’ As far as my comment on possible medication for a purported rib injury, that’s all the more reason to not be carrying at the time. Another failure in judgement. Wouldn’t you agree? Carrying a loaded firearm if he was on opioids? If he was on opioids, (not saying he was) he shouldn’t even have been driving. So, how did he get to the scene to interfere?

As an ICU nurse who supposedly was given medication for his ribs, I wonder if he was on oxycodone? Hadn’t thought of that… That would definitely impair his judgement.

That’s an excellent breakdown—to me. If I understand what you’re saying, the two go hand-in-hand as a means to a decision. I’m not an attorney. But, it always seemed to say—in layman’s terms—to not just focus on the instant, but to look at ALL things without a definite time limit. Even those events that may not directly be involved in the specific circumstance. (i.e. recent threats, other stops that may have had an effect on the officer’s judgment, community events, etc.) That’s why I believe the agent/agents in the Pretti issue will have a strong argument that—while not pleasant to watch, and maybe not the best—they didn’t act with bad intent. They made a split decision under duress. Do I think they may be better suited for some type of ‘off the street duty?’ Yes. For their own psychological needs if nothing else.

Marxism is making another attempt. How's about we just follow the laws on the books, passed by the People's Representatives in Congress? I believe they're as simple as illegal immigration is just that...ILLEGAL. Deport those here illegally with their limited due process rights, and quit making carve-outs. Either that, or change the law.

The actual majority opinion in Barnes v Felix 23-1239 (05/15/2025) is linked. Please read the majority opinion reasoning on Page 7. The moment-of-threat rule applied in the courts below prevents that sort of attention to context, and thus conflicts with this Court’s instruction to analyze the totality of the circumstances. [Hidden Content]

Yep. Whitmire knows. Houston City Council is another matter. I’m just glad I live in La Porte, and not Houston. I thought Texas just passed a law outlawing ‘sanctuary policies’ anyway?

Even Gov. Abbott is saying there needs to be a reset. If the Texas Governor says that, it’s fairly obvious there’s an issue—in perception and communication at the least. Houston City Council meeting last night was overrun with people demanding the city stop working with ICE. Right now, Houston holds those with ICE warrants—just like they hold anyone for any other agency. But, they don’t assist in any other way that’s not a normal part of their duties. The madness is spreading.

See above post.

Actually, the majority SCOTUS opinion explicitly states “the totality of the circumstances” in Barnes v Felix 2025 as the reasoning that should be used to determine use of force. Also, this paper was developed by the Congressional Research Office, which is a part of the Federal Government that advises Congress on SCOTUS for legislative needs. It doesn’t advocate for any position. It merely advises of decisions.

I don’t think so. This mentioned ‘preliminary.’

I said earlier they would turn on themselves. The organizers have no real interest in the people. Only in the chaos. Walz deserves what he gets. He coddled it. [Hidden Content]

Report of the encounter with Mr. Pretti that was provided to Congress: [Hidden Content]