ICE told to get the eff out

[MNW67]

Start with the assumption that their actions collectively amounted to an offence. Obstruction of Justice.

AI Overview

Obstruction of justice in the U.S. involves any intentional act to interfere with legal proceedings, such as destroying evidence, intimidating witnesses, lying to officials, or bribing government figures, to impede investigations or court processes

 

[motorbiking]

A bit more googling and you will realise it’s much broader.

 

[MNW67]

Start with the assumption that their actions collectively amounted to an offence.

You need to be more specific. Are you talking about, for example, conspiracy.

 

[motorbiking]

Is it not clear that we are talking about the broad offence of obstruction of justice?

Ask your AI. “obstruction of justice us law”. It will give you a lot of detail.

 

[MNW67]

A bit more googling

It is hilarious that you pretend to know all this stuff.

it’s much broader

No, it isn't. It is all about hindering criminal investigations and other government proceedings.

 

[MNW67]

Is it not clear that we are talking about the broad offence of obstruction of justice?

Ask your AI. “obstruction of justice us law”. It will give you a lot of detail.

That is exactly what I did before. This is the answer:

AI Overview

Obstruction of justice in U.S. law involves illegally interfering with the administration of justice, covering various acts like destroying evidence, bribing witnesses, lying to investigators, or intimidating jurors, with federal laws (like
18 U.S.C. § 1503 and § 1512) criminalizing these actions that obstruct proceedings, investigations, or court officials. Prosecution requires proving the defendant acted with specific intent to impede the justice system, not accidentally.

What Constitutes Obstruction?

It's a broad crime encompassing many actions, including:

• Tampering: Influencing, intimidating, or impeding jurors, witnesses, or court officials through threats or force.
• Evidence Tampering: Destroying, altering, or concealing documents or physical evidence relevant to an investigation or proceeding, such as shredding subpoenaed papers.
• False Statements: Lying to law enforcement or investigators.
• Interfering with Proceedings: Disrupting court hearings, grand jury proceedings, or official investigations.

Key Legal Elements
For a conviction, the government generally must prove the defendant:

1. Knew of an ongoing judicial or official proceeding (like an investigation or trial).
2. Acted corruptly or with intent to obstruct, influence, or impede that proceeding or its participants.

Federal Statutes
Key federal laws include:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Omnibus Clause): Broadly prohibits influencing or impeding the due administration of justice in federal courts.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (Tampering with a Witness, Victim, or Informant): Addresses interfering with witnesses or informants.
• 18 U.S.C. § 1519: Specifically targets destroying or altering records to obstruct federal investigations or bankruptcy proceedings.

Consequences
Obstruction of justice is a serious felony, leading to significant prison time, fines, and lasting damage to one's career and reputation

 

[MNW67]

Is it not clear that we are talking about the broad offence of obstruction of justice?

Ask your AI. “obstruction of justice us law”. It will give you a lot of detail.

Now I've posted that answer, please tell us how any of it applies to Renee and Becca.

 

[MNW67]

You asked AI rather different questions and it has not linked any context.

Because I understand the law, I asked precisely the right questions. When you just make stuff up, you end up with nonsense like 'obstruction of justice' and 'reasonable suspicion of attempting to impede'.

 

[motorbiking]

Because I understand the law,

You have no clue and have shown you have no clue.

I asked precisely the right questions. When you just make stuff up, you end up with nonsense like 'obstruction of justice' and 'reasonable suspicion of attempting to impede'.

then you just get upset, when your ego is dented.

 

[MNW67]

You have no clue and have shown you have no clue.

then you just get upset, when your ego is dented.

 

[motorbiking]

You always get stuck in the weeds and ignore obvious statements like "It's a broad crime encompassing many actions". That has an obvious meaning.

The basic argument is:
1) were ICE conducting a lawful investigation and enforcement? Probably.
2) Were the Goods aware of this. Yes - that is why they were there. (point 1 covered).
3) Did the Goods intend to obstruct, influence, or impede that proceeding or its participants. Probably based on the information we have (thats point 2 covered).

Then separately, would a reasonable person say that Rebecca Good's actions, in encouraging her wife to flee, amount to obstructing and impeding the lawful activity of the ICE officers Baring in mind we have already exhausted any right to resist unlawful arrest.

There are obvious grounds for an offence to be investigated.

 

[MNW67]

The basic argument is:
1) were ICE conducting a lawful investigation and enforcement? Probably.
2) Were the Goods aware of this. Yes - that is why they were there. (point 1 covered).
3) Did the Goods intend to obstruct, influence, or impede that proceeding or its participants. Probably based on the information we have (thats point 2 covered).

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No; Renee and Becca intended to observe, video, and make a lot of noise. All totally legal under the US constitution.

Then separately, would a reasonable person say that Rebecca Good's actions, in encouraging her wife to flee, amount to obstructing and impeding the lawful activity of the ICE officers.

First of all, the answer to 3) means that the activity (ordering Renee to leave the car) wasn't lawful.

But even if you are correct and order to leave the car was lawful, a prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Becca had specific intent for Renee to flee and that Renee acted because of what she heard Becca say.

 

[Highway Man]

It still all boils down to common sense and seeing what happened with your eyes. We saw a couple of very obnoxious lesbians trying it on with Ice. Obstructing the road and driving and impacting an agent. Surely the lawyers must look at this and think. She got shot through her own doing. Her wife instigated it as well. Unfortunately she died from her injuries. That wasn’t the ICE agents fault. It was hers.

 

[MNW67]

It still all boils down to common sense and seeing what happened with your eyes. We saw a couple of very obnoxious lesbians trying it on with Ice. Obstructing the road and driving and impacting an agent. Surely the lawyers must look at this and think. She got shot through her own doing. Her wife instigated it as well. Unfortunately she died from her injuries. That wasn’t the ICE agents fault. It was hers.

A very forensic analysis. Bravo. You have managed to address all the key legal points objectively and dispassionately. Have you ever thought of applying to be a magistrate.

 

[Highway Man]

A very forensic analysis. Bravo. You have managed to address all the key legal points objectively and dispassionately. Have you ever thought of applying to be a magistrate.

It is all down to common sense and upbringing. You do wrong and you suffer the consequences. She will have to accept that you follow the law or risk being shot.