ANOTHER ICE SHOOTING IN Minneapolis

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, DCT said:

Big if at the end of the day.  If you violate the law the government will not protect you if it is outside the scope of your duties.  If you do violate  it can be costly.

I am usually humored on social media on how many people believe that Qualified Immunity protects an officer/agent  from being charged in a crime.

[OlDawg]

26 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I am usually humored on social media on how many people believe that Qualified Immunity protects an officer/agent  from being charged in a crime.

It does happen. I don't know how many people remember this one. But, it put a big stain on HPD for a while.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

 

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Welp……

Homan made it clear they are not walking away from Minneapolis….Staying until the problem is gone.

They will draw down agents ONLY if there is cooperation from local police and jails….

He ALSO mentioned and supported Kristi Noem 

 

Homan's full press conference with questions & answers. He also mentions the networks that are organizing people against law enforcement have justice coming. I’d believe him if I were them. He doesn’t impress me as a bluffer.

About 35 minutes. But, a good listen. 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, DCT said:

In your opinion did the officers violate the law?  

In both cases I believe that they are open to being charged in a crime. That is to say that they have no Qualified Immunity that protects them from criminal prosecution (as in all cases). 

Both cases resulted in intentionally or knowingly killing a person (Texas culpable mental states) so Murder unless under self defense which is the issue.  Everyone knows who did it and the results. The only real question in my opinion is whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was clearly not a case of self defense.

Without knowing Minnesota or federal laws on self defense, I will rely on Texas law only as a similar situation.

 The shooting of Good in my opinion clearly has reasonable doubt that it was not Murder. I don’t think the agent had the culpable mental state (as I have seen claimed numerous times) of, I know that I am not in danger but here’s a chance to take out a protester. If this incident happened locally, I would expect a No Bill from the grand jury.

I have no clear opinion on Pretti but I lean toward the same results but not as clear. In Good the agent was alone and we could see what happened for the most part. In Pretti at the speed in which it happened and agents (possibly including the shooter) yelling gun and the continued struggle, I believe that it would take some definitive information that the agent knew that no one was in danger and merely chose to take out a demonstrator. Unlike Good, we have no clear video of what happened in the scrum as the one video called it. 

As you know that the burden is always on the government to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Only as an anecdote, I was the supervisor on scene of a homicide where two guys confronted each other outside of a club about a block away from the entrance. One guy pulled a gun and fired it, possibly to scare the other guy away. It worked and the other guy left.

However…..

He walked about a block away in the other direction, got a pistol out of his car, came back and confronted the guy who fired the shot and then shot and killed him. I said at the scene that it was clearly Murder because it wasn’t a stand your ground case in my opinion. The suspect had left the scene and was out of danger since the guy who fired the shot didn’t follow him. He came back to the scene, now armed, to continue the argument and ended up killing the other guy. The DA did not get an indictment from the grand jury. Obviously by law it’s the grand jury‘s opinion and not the DA’s but it was clearly a Murder under Texas law (intentionally or knowingly took another person‘s life) but with self defense as a defense to prosecution. Obviously the DA could likely have pushed for an indictment and let a trial jury make the call (a principle which I do not believe in) but apparently there was a reasonable doubt in the opinion of the DA that they could not overcome in front of a jury.
 

It does not matter if the guy was guilty. What matters is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If a jury is 90% sure that a crime was committed, that to me is not guilty.

It is the same standard everywhere. The elements might change depending on jurisdiction. It is the same in the Pretti case for now. Is there body cameras which show a clear picture of what happened and the agent knew that no one was in danger? That’s possible but I believe that is what it would take to bring criminal charges. 

So Good in my opinion should be a No Bill unless there’s evidence that hasn’t been made public which is always possible.

Pretti is in limbo but that in my opinion means no case unless there is evidence that hasn’t been made public. The other agent grabbing Pretti’s pistol before the shots were fired will probably have no bearing unless it can be shown that the agent shooting knew that the danger had been removed and had time to respond.

More in a layman’s terms, if an issue is debatable then there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If it is beyond debate or the evidence clearly shows that there was no reasonable belief of possible serious bodily injury or death, it should be brought to trial. Notwithstanding that a defense will always claim there is a reasonable doubt. 

Do you think there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in what is now public information, that the agent knew that there was no threat under split second decision making under the Supreme Court ruling in Graham v. Connor? 

[tvc184]

42 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

It does happen. I don't know how many people remember this one. But, it put a big stain on HPD for a while.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

 

I remember it well and made a few social media posts about it.

It also showed that Qualified Immunity didn’t stop the police officer from a 60 prison sentence for falsifying a probable cause affidavit. Obviously that long sentence was not for perjury but that the perjury led to a Felony Murder charge. 

[Reagan]

True!  It's all about the cause!  As long as it's someone else dying, that is!!

[OlDawg]

I know there’s no expectation of privacy in public. But, I can see some of this being abused. This reminds me of The Patriot Act.

“The powerful tools in ICE’s arsenal to track suspects — and protesters

Biometric trackers, cellphone location databases and drones are among the surveillance technologies that federal agents are tapping in their deportation campaign.”

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

[DCT]

3 hours ago, tvc184 said:

In both cases I believe that they are open to being charged in a crime. That is to say that they have no Qualified Immunity that protects them from criminal prosecution (as in all cases). 

Both cases resulted in intentionally or knowingly killing a person (Texas culpable mental states) so Murder unless under self defense which is the issue.  Everyone knows who did it and the results. The only real question in my opinion is whether there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was clearly not a case of self defense.

Without knowing Minnesota or federal laws on self defense, I will rely on Texas law only as a similar situation.

 The shooting of Good in my opinion clearly has reasonable doubt that it was not Murder. I don’t think the agent had the culpable mental state (as I have seen claimed numerous times) of, I know that I am not in danger but here’s a chance to take out a protester. If this incident happened locally, I would expect a No Bill from the grand jury.

I have no clear opinion on Pretti but I lean toward the same results but not as clear. In Good the agent was alone and we could see what happened for the most part. In Pretti at the speed in which it happened and agents (possibly including the shooter) yelling gun and the continued struggle, I believe that it would take some definitive information that the agent knew that no one was in danger and merely chose to take out a demonstrator. Unlike Good, we have no clear video of what happened in the scrum as the one video called it. 

As you know that the burden is always on the government to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Only as an anecdote, I was the supervisor on scene of a homicide where two guys confronted each other outside of a club about a block away from the entrance. One guy pulled a gun and fired it, possibly to scare the other guy away. It worked and the other guy left.

However…..

He walked about a block away in the other direction, got a pistol out of his car, came back and confronted the guy who fired the shot and then shot and killed him. I said at the scene that it was clearly Murder because it wasn’t a stand your ground case in my opinion. The suspect had left the scene and was out of danger since the guy who fired the shot didn’t follow him. He came back to the scene, now armed, to continue the argument and ended up killing the other guy. The DA did not get an indictment from the grand jury. Obviously by law it’s the grand jury‘s opinion and not the DA’s but it was clearly a Murder under Texas law (intentionally or knowingly took another person‘s life) but with self defense as a defense to prosecution. Obviously the DA could likely have pushed for an indictment and let a trial jury make the call (a principle which I do not believe in) but apparently there was a reasonable doubt in the opinion of the DA that they could not overcome in front of a jury.
 

It does not matter if the guy was guilty. What matters is the proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If a jury is 90% sure that a crime was committed, that to me is not guilty.

It is the same standard everywhere. The elements might change depending on jurisdiction. It is the same in the Pretti case for now. Is there body cameras which show a clear picture of what happened and the agent knew that no one was in danger? That’s possible but I believe that is what it would take to bring criminal charges. 

So Good in my opinion should be a No Bill unless there’s evidence that hasn’t been made public which is always possible.

Pretti is in limbo but that in my opinion means no case unless there is evidence that hasn’t been made public. The other agent grabbing Pretti’s pistol before the shots were fired will probably have no bearing unless it can be shown that the agent shooting knew that the danger had been removed and had time to respond.

More in a layman’s terms, if an issue is debatable then there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If it is beyond debate or the evidence clearly shows that there was no reasonable belief of possible serious bodily injury or death, it should be brought to trial. Notwithstanding that a defense will always claim there is a reasonable doubt. 

Do you think there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, in what is now public information, that the agent knew that there was no threat under split second decision making under the Supreme Court ruling in Graham v. Connor? 

The officers must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene not with the benefit of hindsight.

I believe at some point Grahams friend tried explaining his medical condition.

The two officers who fired there weapons in Minneapolis would not have known that the discharged weapon had come from the officer who retrieved the weapon.