Oh please. You think the FBI is gonna just stand back and let those state investigators do anything or get anywhere near the crime scene and evidence? Noem has already said the state doesn’t have jurisdiction here. They’re are actively covering up a murder.
IANAL, but this feels like the controlling US Code section on which the Feds might rely to snatch any potential prosecution out of the State’s hands:
28 U.S. Code § 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
How would they stop state investigators from interviewing witnesses who want to cooperate, or viewing videos available to the public, or even inspecting a public street?
The FBI has already said they will not cooperate with local officials.
Bob Jacobson, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) just said that denial of cooperation by the Feds would effectively preclude the State agency from doing a reasonable investigation.
So … what the Feds have done here … may very well work.
By claiming that they’re interfering in a federal investigation.
They can’t.
The bottom line is that states are legally permitted to prosecute federal officials for state crimes—within limits. The limits stem from the federal constitutional principle that states should not be able to undermine federal policy via targeted criminal prosecutions, a doctrine known as Supremacy Clause immunity. But this principle only applies when federal officials are reasonably acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties. When federal officials act beyond the scope of their duties, violate federal law, or behave in an egregious or unwarranted manner, state prosecutions can move forward. Even where charges are ultimately dismissed, states have occasionally used prosecutions as a form of pushback against controversial federal actions.
Noem can whine all she wants, but she has no legal way to prevent them.
This may mean that while the state has the right to investigate, unfortunately the investigation may not be productive without cooperation from the federal government.
It may work due to intimidation, inertia, etc., but I don’t see how, physically or legally, the feds could stop state investigators from interviewing witnesses and looking at videos, if they really decided they wanted to.
And IMO Walz and other state leaders need to give orders, as much as they can, for state investigators to investigate this to the best of their ability.
By stating that local officials are interfering with a federal investigation.
How would that stop them from talking to witnesses who (say) drive themselves to the state investigators’ office, or reviewing public videos?
My point is that decent people need to fight these kinds of things to the legal limit - bring it to judges to decide if there’s a legal dispute - rather than give in prematurely. Maybe they lose, but make them go through all the legal rigamarole necessary to force it.
These times demand fighters, who fight until the referees blow the whistle (or judges sign orders to cease or whatever and all appeals have been exhausted), not those who just give up when obstacles present themselves.
By telling witnesses not to cooperate with anyone other than themselves, and telling them, in excruciating detail, what will happen if they do. Please realize that this is not a board game where both side are required to play by the same rules. Local officials cannot usually afford, in time or money, to go up against the Feds in court.
They haven’t even tried. I don’t accept your premise.
A most succinct, clear description of what happened.
From Minnesota AG Keith Ellison:
“State authorities can investigate anyway. We don’t need their authority. It’s at least arguable that there’s a violation of MN statues here. All of them depend on an investigation though. And the federal govt can’t stop MN from doing it’s own, but I would hope it wouldn’t come to that.”
I give them ZERO benefit of the doubt. I learned that lesson well when Powell lied about WMDs. And multiply that distrust a million or 2 times when it comes to Trump. But that does not mean that I accept as certain interpretations of what I consider to be somewhat ambiguous evidence.
I am not pushing any specific narrative, but I simply view the video differently than you. At the very least, it looks as tho he had to move quickly out of the way when she moved forward. Although she had her wheels turned, it is not crystal clear to me that - if he had not moved - she would have made her turn without making contact with him. In fact, when I viewed it several times (apologies - not going to watch it several more. Sitting her in my living room watching my computer screen I do not expect to render perfect judgment/analysis) it looked as though she possibly made slight contact with one of his legs. I am content to wait at least a little while until I see some clearer analysis/imagine to establish EXACTLY where the various people/vehicles existed with respect to each other throughout this interaction.
The shooter was entirely in the wrong - as I suspect the other 2 who approached the door were as well. He shouldn’t have been standing in front of the car, and no matter what was said or done, he shouldn’t have shot into the car as it moved. That is enough for me. I do not need to go further and say “he clearly was in no danger.” Sure, HE put himself in danger. But once someone is standing in front of my car, it ought to at least be considered whether I paid enough care to not hitting them. The level of awareness and care attributed to the driver ought to consider the confusing and stressful nature of the specific situation. For all I know, she was so scared/threatened by the asshole thug reaching in her window that she did not even see the asshole thug in front of her car.
Another point - at some point, I read that the deceased was divorced from a husband and had a wife. Then I started seeing statements made by trans persons/advocates, and otherwise referring to the victim’s choice of pronouns, and suggesting that trans people have borne the brunt of so many of Trump’s policies. I readily accept that Trump has been horrible towards trans people. And to some extent, we should celebrate this victim’s (martyr’s?) entire identity/life/being. But in no way was this horrendous and inexcusable action directed at the victim because of their gender identity.
I have to emphatically disagree here, the agent was never in danger. He always had the ability to step out of the way. We know this because that’s exactly what he did, and it proved effective – he was uninjured.
Whoever posted the 2014 policy on shooting at fleeing vehicles (may be in another thread) thank you, because that policy states the obvious. A bullet is not going to alter the trajectory of a 4000lb vehicle, and incapacitating the driver could create a dangerous situation.
And that’s exactly how it played out. Shooting the driver DID NOT make the agent safer, we know this because it did not stop or alter the trajectory of the car. Rather, stepping out of the way removed him from danger and he ended up being fine. And then the car, with an incapacitated driver, created a dangerous situation.
At the end of the day, these thugs know the legal loopholes. They’ve been puffing each other up for years online about the legal lines they have to walk for self defense claims. These threads are all over gun and RW forums. He stepped in front of the car, but not very far, because he knew that would give him legal justification for deadly force without putting himself in real danger. He knew that. He’s done it before, most likely. We see it in videos all the time. I don’t think we need to acknowledge their stupid justifications, especially when their own policies highlight how stupid those justifications are.
Furthermore, ICE has created this environment by masking up and disappearing people off the streets. They don’t get to play brown shirts and then complain that citizens are impeding them or filming them. The folks out there putting themselves at risk to try to slow down ICE are heroes.
I would argue that even if there is some ambiguity over this particular incident (which I don’t see, but for the sake of argument); the situation was created by this administration precisely to manufacture these kinds of incidents. This isn’t in any way an unfortunate accident, but a planned outcome that serves their authoritarian purposes.
If you actually watch the video, she drove around the person in front of her car. She avoided hitting him because she turned sharply to the right. Whether or not she saw him, she drove in a way that would avoid hitting him. So I assume she saw him. (I don’t think there is a way to know that for sure though; maybe she drove that way just because it was a way out - it’s not like we can ask her now.)
She never even left her vehicle before being shot, so I don’t know how it could be. These points about her gender identity, or having left-wing politics, and so on, those are things being tossed out there after the fact by both sides. I don’t see how any of that could have been known at the time of the incident, unless maybe someone in ICE saw a bumper sticker on her car or something, but even then I doubt it had any relevance.
Oh, no! Better shoot her three times in the head, then!
The poor ICE baby, had to move quickly. I hear he was in the hospital for that. The poor little thing!