How soon?

[Tom Graves]

Trump-supporting JFKA conspiracy theorists belong to the 2/3 to 3/4 majority of Westerners who reject the lone-gunman theory.

Your view of the JFK case is shared by only 1/4 to 1/3 of the Western world.

Dear Comrade Griffith,

Thanks for proving my point, i.e., that since late 1961, when the two-year-old top-secret Department 14 of General Oleg Gribanov Second Chief Directorate (today's FSB) sent GRU Lt. Col. Dmitry Polyakov to the FBI's NYC field office to "volunteer" to spy for it at the UN (followed a month later by its sending KGB Major Aleksei Kulak to do the same thing), the KGB, by waging disinformation, "active measures," and mole-based (can you say Bruce Leonard Solie, Leonard V. McCoy and George Kisevalter?) strategic deception counterintelligence operations against us and our NATO allies, has, ever since then, been very successful in getting us to defeat ourselves.

The fact that so many Trump supporters are, like you, tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists is living proof of how truly effective it has been.

-- Tom

[Tom Graves]

Jump to conclusions much? One might almost begin to suspect little people in FSB/SVR* uniforms are living inside your noggin. (*Formerly KGB. See what I did there?  )

Her "wife" (but of course) is heard saying that she (the "husband") was there for anti-ICE purposes. This was not Suzy Creamcheese. I'm not saying this was not a tragedy or that ICE could not have handled it better, but your inevitable knee-jerk responses say far more about YOU than about Trump or his supporters.

Dear FPR (Fancy Pants Rants),

Do you think "a little-bit sensitive" Agent Ross was standing in front of the car when he fired his first shot (through the lower-right corner of the windshield)?

Even if "a little bit sensitive" Agent Ross was standing in front of the vehicle when he fired his first shot (which he wasn't), do you think Ms. Good tried to hit him?

If not, do you think it's legal for law enforcement to shoot someone who's trying to get away from them?

-- Tom

I think you have the most advanced case of TDS I've ever seen.

Dear FPR (Fancy Pants Rants),

Truth-be-told, I don't like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Jeffrey Dahmer very much, either.

-- Tom

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This whole thread belongs on the U. S. Politics thread, but having now watched the ICE Agent's cellphone video on CNN, I must say, in my official capacity as a Retired Former Lawyer, that ICE Agent Ross is, or at least should be, in a world of trouble.

Here is the USDOJ policy on the use of deadly force: https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force.

Specifically concerning vehicles, it says:

Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

The interactions between Renee and Rebecca Good and the ICE Agents immediately preceding the incident strike me as about as non-threatening as they could be. I literally cannot believe that this escalated into Renee being shot point-blank seconds later.

The over-the-top knee-jerk efforts of Administration officials to justify this, and the over-the-top comments at the FOX website, just show how fragmented and rage-filled this country has become. When the best you can do right off the bat is J. D. Vance screeching about "Absolute immunity!" (no way, Jose), you know rationality has left the building. The TDS Cult and the Trump Cult are literally at war, with the rest of us inceasingly caught in the middle.

Agent Ross had better find a whiz-bang lawyer and sympathetic jury if he hopes to tap dance his way out of those videos and that DOJ policy.

How can he be prosecuted for violating DOJ policy? A policy is not a law. If he's violating DOJ policy then he can be disciplined by DOJ. But what *law* did he violate? Isn't that the question? You're citing the policy but not the law.

The policy is, as I read it, based largely on a Supreme Court decision, Graham vs. Connor, that used a "reasonable" standard to determine whether the action was lawful or not. That's the law we need to look at. So the question (for me) then is whether or not, in that moment, the officer reasonably feared for his life. And if he did reasonably fear for his life, then unfortunately, he was justified in opening fire and firing all three shots.

To put it otherwise: Was his fear of harm reasonable or not? He probably violated DOJ policy. But did he violate the law? It's not clear to me he did.

Question: Did Ross interact with the driver? It appears he didn't. As you point out, the interactions between the parties before the shooting. Whether the agents escalated matters (seems to me they handled it poorly) or the driver? Lots of things we don't yet know. And really, how many times have we had where what we thought we knew on Day #1 turned upside down on Day #2? It seems to always happen.

Graham is here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

[Tom Graves]

How can he be prosecuted for violating DOJ policy? A policy is not a law. If he's violating DOJ policy then he can be disciplined by DOJ. But what *law* did he violate? Isn't that the question? You're citing the policy but not the law.

The policy is, as I read it, based largely on a Supreme Court decision, Graham vs. Connor, that used a "reasonable" standard to determine whether the action was lawful or not. That's the law we need to look at. So the question (for me) then is whether or not, in that moment, the officer reasonably feared for his life. And if he did reasonably fear for his life, then unfortunately, he was justified in opening fire and firing all three shots.

To put it otherwise: Was his fear of harm reasonable or not? He probably violated DOJ policy. But did he violate the law? It's not clear to me he did.

Question: Did Ross interact with the driver? It appears he didn't. As you point out, the interactions between the parties before the shooting. Whether the agents escalated matters (seems to me they handled it poorly) or the driver? Lots of things we don't yet know. And really, how many times have we had where what we thought we knew on Day #1 turned upside down on Day #2? It seems to always happen.

Graham is here: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

Given the fact that:

1) she was surrounded by masked armed men

2) whose vehicles were blocking her vehicle (even though, apparently wanting to turn left, she had signaled to the driver of the second blocking vehicle to go around her)

3) one of them quickly walked up to her car

4) grabbed the doorhandle

5) tried to open her door

6) yelling, "get the xxxx out of the car"

7) and another one was yelling, "get out of here"

8 ) and then the guy who had grabbed the doorhandle reached inside the car to try to either open the door or grab her . . .

wasn't she in reasonable fear of her life and therefore acted reasonably when she turned her steering wheel to the right in an attempt to avoid hitting the armed idiot standing in front of her car, and tried to get the heck out of there at a reasonable rate of speed?

[Tom Graves]

Here is a video I had not seen before, which shows how quickly Ross pulls and fires his gun and that the second and third shots were apparently fired through the open window as he stood to the side: https://x.com/Fritschner/status/2008989256543555598?s=20.

This is simply i-n-e-x-c-u-s-a-b-l-e.

I thought you already knew that, FPL.