ICE told to get the eff out

[noseall]

.irrelevant waffle

 

[MNW67]

She had no such right.

NY Times legal analysis says she did have that right, if the agents were trying to arrest her without lawful authority.

 

[noseall]

NY Times legal analysis says she did have that right, if the agents were trying to arrest her without lawful authority.

Nothing she did says otherwise. None on here have shown otherwise. She was just sat in her car.

 

[motorbiking]

NY Times legal analysis says she did have that right, if the agents were trying to arrest her without lawful authority.

They also post this footage..

I found the commentary unconvincing, but it gives a clearer analysis.

here's one for your google AI
"right to resist unlawful arrest Minnesota"

 

[motorbiking]

Nothing she did says otherwise. None on here have shown otherwise. She was just sat in her car.

she wasn't. She decided to flee.

 

[catlad]

So prior to yesterdays' ruling, ICE were lawless and and unrestricted.

I suspect, once Trump is out of power, he will be tried for murder like anyone else.

 

[MNW67]

They also post this footage..

I found the commentary unconvincing, but it gives a clearer analysis.

here's one for your google AI
"right to resist unlawful arrest Minnesota"

I posted about that video yesterday. I didn't realise it was on YT, though. Do you still think he was acting in self-defence when he fired that second pair through the side window.

 

[catlad]

No court is going to convict him based on his training and experience.

Would you bet your life on that!

 

[Highway Man]

Would you bet your life on that!

Not my life no

 

[Highway Man]

I posted about that video yesterday. I didn't realise it was on YT, though. Do you still think he was acting in self-defence when he fired that second pair through the side window.

Irrelevant he had already started shooting,.

 

[Highway Man]

I suspect, once Trump is out of power, he will be tried for murder like anyone else.

I wouldn't call it murder

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Here's a question... Does anyone think this case is simple or clear-cut?

I don't. It's complex. But she shouldn't have created the situation by driving directly at an armed police officer.

But there's a lot of language by some suggesting it was simple.

 

[Highway Man]

Here's a question... Does anyone think this case is simple or clear-cut?

I don't. It's complex. But she shouldn't have created the situation by driving directly at an armed police officer.

But there's a lot of language by some suggesting it was simple.

There is a lot of ethical questions, regardless to the law she did instigate this herself along with her wife who should face charges. She has admitted herself that she was to blame.

 

[MNW67]

Here's a question... Does anyone think this case is simple or clear-cut?

I don't. It's complex. But she shouldn't have created the situation by driving directly at an armed police officer.

But there's a lot of language by some suggesting it was simple.

Well, that's one of the issues which isn't clear cut. All the evidence shows that she deliberately turned away from him and didn't actually drive directly at him.

 

[MNW67]

"right to resist unlawful arrest Minnesota"

Surely, the right to resist unlawful arrest by a federal agent is the same in every state.

Anyway, the point was whether she had to comply with unlawful orders.