Search results

They didn't seem to inform of her anything really. Just yelled straight away for her to get out of the effing car.

So, essentially corruption.

There is a saying about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. What will countries expect for their billion dollars.

Why would countries want to pay. Something sounds very fishy.

Can you explain or link to how it fits together, please.

Is this the Minnesota law? '609.50 OBSTRUCTING LEGAL PROCESS, ARREST, OR FIREFIGHTING. Subdivision 1. Whoever intentionally does any of the following may be sentenced as provided in subdivision 2: (1) obstructs, hinders, or prevents the lawful execution of any legal process, civil or...

Why would I know an arcane law in Minnesota.

One of the pardoned Jan 6th rioters, who assaulted police with a baseball bat, tried to hold a rally in Minnesota, but was drowned out by counter protestors. Trump seems miffed and is readying the regular army to patrol Minnesota. The governor has already mobilised the National Guard to assist...

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.

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.

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.

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

It's not clear yet. I think possibly he was walking across the front of the car to join his colleagues on the other side, but was caught out by Renee setting off sooner than he expected. Becca suddenly tells Renee to drive. I don't think anyone was expecting that.

You don't know the background. It looks like this research was commissioned by a police support group to try to overturn the results of the previous research done a decade before. But it seems they didn't like the results. That is because the results showed that even untrained civilians could...

I agree. There are so many elements to unpack.

I did find that funny. Basically the people who commissioned the research didn't like the findings. So, they decided to try to trash it.

I've been trying to work out the point you are raising. Is this about law enforcement putting themselves in danger. And whether it is still legal to use deadly force.

All the research shows the opposite. It shows that even untrained civilians would have had enough time to reassess and stop firing.

All the leading US case law says that when the danger has passed the officer has to stop shooting. By the time the first shot had been fired, the agent knew that he was no longer in any danger. Therefore, because he was no longer in any danger, any further shots were not justified. You are now...

:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: You are so clueless. You have quoted, I think, four Supreme Court cases in this thread. And, with three of them, you have completely misunderstood the issue on which the Justices were actually ruling. Let's take Barnes vs Felix; The only issue the Supreme...