The last sentence is correct – the murderer will never face charges. But on the preceding comment, the FBI is not “compromised” – that’s just not the right word. The FBI is now simply a tool of a rogue regime employing unconstitutional policies to move it closer to dictatorship.
The concept of “justice” is entirely superseded by ideological alignment with the Orange One, and loyalty to him, and absolutely nothing else. This is exactly why Minnesota authorities are being blocked from investigating this case.
Except it really is. An unarmed woman was shot and killed, though the side door of her car. The murder and what led up to it was captured in full from several angles. There are no extenuating circumstances that could possibly make that not murder.
She could literally have been leaving an elementary school having killed all the children in it, and it wouldn’t make it any less murder.
From my post #211,
“ICE officers have no authority to search a US citizen or arrest her (unless there’s probable cause to believe she’s harboring undocumented individuals, not a contention here). A woman surrounded by masked, armed men who have no law enforcement authority over her has every right to try to escape.”
I would not want to get out of the car. They haul you in, and if you’re lucky, you might get released the same day.
If they wanted her to move, why did he demand she get out of the car?
Citizens have every legal, constitutional right to observe, record, and protest, without getting their brains blown out. Implying she was contributing to her own murder is way off base.
He will never face federal charges under the current administration (or likely a future one as he’ll almost certainly receive a presidential pardon). He will likely face state charges. They may or not succeed but the DA would not launch an investigation (in current political environment) if they did not intend to press charges.
Well, it is possible that they are both true. I’m just saying that I have heard different information from different people.
It’s a reply to the person who said that someone could have looked up the information for himself. Answer - no, because there are contradictory versions out there. And also to the person who said that we have a full clear picture of what happened. Again no. Details like why she was in a particular place at a particular time matter in a murder trial.
To be clear, I’m sure it was murder and the persons responsible, that is all the agents that attacked her vehicle, should be prosecuted.
They are being blocked from the federal investigation, the murder was caught on tape in front of inumerable witnesses, the murderers own phone recorded him calling the victim a “fucking bitch” after murdering her. It doesn’t take all that much investigating.
No they don’t. Not in the slightest. Why the accused was in a particular place at a particular time might matter (but not all that much in a case where the accused is recorded murdering the victim and then recorded calling her “fucking bitch” after shooting her in the head). But why the victim was there doesn’t matter in the slightest.
I’m not sure about state charges being “likely”, but yes, that may happen. But there’s also the question of immunity of federal agents. JD asserted that they have “absolute immunity”, but, as always, he’s wrong, just as he as about everything. They do not. But they do have an extraordinary degree of protection and the immunity situation is nuanced and based on determinations of whether the agent’s actions were authorized under federal law and necessary.
Yes thats how I interpret the statement the state officials made about the FBI blocking them (especially as they made clear they would happily cooperate if the FBI stoped blocking them). They were justifying starting their own investigation.
As described in the link above it only applies if they were carrying out “necessary and proper” duties as a federal officer. Given the DHS’ own policies say they can’t shoot at a moving vehicle, that seems very much not the case. A lot will depend on the judge of course, as we’ve all learned in the last couple of years
But it think it’s likely he will get charged. No guarantee of a conviction despite the overwhelming evidence
Which makes sense… The first shot was as she was traveling away from the officer, but not before she was totally past him. He was off to the side but still in front of the vehicle, with it angled away from him.
There is absolutely no way, short of an autopsy (maybe) to determine that given there were three shots fired almost simultaneously.
Also IANAL but I don’t think it matters in these circumstances (again where all three shots were fired within a second or less). The person that fired the second and third shots is just as guilty of murder as the one who fired the first. Even if you can somehow show the first shot was ultimately the fatal one.
Finally a murder case based on the first shot alone is only remotely dubious in the context of a cop in front of an American jury. It’s murder too, just very slightly less slam dunk.
