ICE told to get the eff out

aha so you are a solicitor of sorts, with a law degree
If by solicitor you mean “do legal stuff” then yes. But solicitor is just a type of lawyer.

I run a team who advise on matters relating to corporate law, mostly, enforcement and defence of IP claims. But usually structuring IP to optimise profits and reduce tax.
 
If by solicitor you mean “do legal stuff” then yes. But solicitor is just a type of lawyer.

I run a team who advise on matters relating to corporate law, mostly, enforcement and defence of IP claims. But usually structuring IP to optimise profits and reduce tax.
OMG so I was pretty dam close, I knew I was a great judge
 
Anyway back to the story. It’s down to the perception of the “officer” as to if he faced an appropriate threat, to make the use of deadly force lawful and the credibility of his perception if it gets tested.
 
Anyway back to the story. It’s down to the perception of the “officer” as to if he faced an appropriate threat, to make the use of deadly force lawful and the credibility of his perception if it gets tested.

That's rather gobbledegooky. I think the rule is whether a reasonable officer would have perceived there was a threat of death or serious injury in the same circumstances.
 
That's rather gobbledegooky. I think the rule is whether a reasonable officer would have perceived there was a threat of death or serious injury in the same circumstances.

Which is why the Orangina administration got in really quick with the lies (their version of events), so that when any other officer gives their opinion, it'll be on the narrative version, rather than the facts.

Unlike our version of the law - an investigation, then whether the actions were justified by the circumstances found - the US system is based on the judgement of officers based on what they reasonably would have done, knowing what the perpetrator (was reported to have known at the time).
Which is why control of the narrative is vital, as is blocking any investigation.

According to the law professor on R5L.
 
Last edited:
I'd be interested to see if we can all reach some common ground:

Does everyone agree that the victim is not a 'terrorist'.

Does everyone agree that the second and third shots were definitely illegal. This is important because, if one of those killed her, it would be murder.

I have not seen any video or audio so far where I have heard the victim being asked to move her car by the agents. Has anyone else seen anything which shows that.

It is clear from the POV video that the victim and her wife knew these men were ICE agents. So, do we all accept that they were not unknown assailants.
 
Back
Top