XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics   
   From: katt@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 11 Jan 2026 23:47:26 -0800,  Alan says...   
      
   > > It had been decided that the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension would   
   > > investigate Good's shooting death along with the FBI, but that later was   
   > > changed by the U.S. Attorney's office, according to Evans.'   
   > >   
   > > Specific enough for you?   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > My prediction:   
   >   
   > The Loser will run away from this!   
      
   If you want to continue down this bullshit, moot and unimportant part of this   
   story, I have no other option(s):   
      
   > > Why wouldn't local law work with ICE instead of turning   
   > > their backs? Turnabout is fair play.   
   >   
   > What does that have to do with why the feds are PREVENTING local law   
   > enforcement from investigatin?   
      
   Why waste the time and effort?   
      
   ALL of the evidence is here:   
      
   https://x.com/i/status/2009679932289626385   
      
   Is this just another one of your ruses... you know... talk about the minutiae   
   of an incident, instead of the facts.   
      
   In most cases, federal authorities cannot LEGALLY stop local jurisdictions   
   from conducting their own investigation into the same incident.   
      
   HOWEVER, there are specific SCENARIOS and legal mechanisms where the federal   
   government takes the lead.   
      
   (reason to prevent)   
      
   I will break this down for you one baby step at a time as you so desperately   
   need us to.   
      
   Understanding Concurrent Jurisdiction in the Minneapolis Incident:   
      
   In the case of the ICE agent being struck by a vehicle in Minneapolis, the act   
   likely violates both federal law (assaulting or killing a federal officer) and   
   Minnesota state law (criminal vehicular homicide or assault).   
      
   (reason to prevent)   
      
   Under the principle of dual sovereignty, both the FBI/Homeland Security and   
   the Minneapolis Police Department have the legal right to investigate. The   
   federal government cannot simply "order" the local police to stop their   
   investigation, as the state has its own independent interest in enforcing   
   Minnesota's laws.   
      
   So... I want to know your source for you saying the feds "are PREVENTING local   
   law enforcement from investigatin(sic)."   
      
   HOW ARE THEY BEING PREVENTED FROM DOING THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION? IF IT'S IN   
   RELATION TO THE FEDS DOING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE FIRST, THE "PREVENTION" IS THAT   
   THE FEDS WILL NOT SIMPLY GIVE UP THEIR EVIDENCE UNTIL THEY HAVE USED IT TO   
   "MAKE THEIR CASE".   
      
   (see below)   
      
   The Physical Control of the Scene:   
      
   While both agencies have legal authority, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN TAKE   
   PHYSICAL CONTROL OF THE IMMEDIATE CRIME SCENE if it occurs on federal property   
   or INVOLVES FEDERAL VICTIMS.   
      
   Does this not make sense to you, or are you going to keep whining about MS/MN   
   being "prevented" from doing their own investigation?   
      
   They are NOT being "prevented". They're just not going to get the evidence the   
   feds have.   
      
   They've got video... what "OTHER" evidence do they need.   
      
   Your bullshit focus on the minutiae doesn't work any more. You're probably   
   whining about ONE piece of evidence not being provided and and like a faggot,   
   you're calling that "preventing".   
      
   NO ONE is preventing MS/MN from conduction their own investigation. Because   
   they don't get ONE, or even more, pieces of evidence, does NOT mean they're   
   being prevented from conducting their own investigation.   
      
   Your bullshit semantics do not apply here. Just because MS/MN is whining about   
   not getting evidence, does NOT mean they aren't going ahead with their   
   investigation.   
      
   No municipality or state wouldn't go ahead with their own investigation, JUST   
   because they can't have ALL of the evidence, in a manner of time THEY think   
   they should have it.   
      
   The case is DAYS old, and you're whining already!!??   
      
   I'm through talking about your bullshit semantics and the deflection you're   
   exhibiting. The FACT is, that a federal agent was hit by Renee Good and you   
   can't stand it that you were so fucking wrong about the whole thing, that   
   you had to start focusing on the minutiae again.   
      
   Did Renee Good not hit the ICE or federal agent with her car?   
      
   Why yes... yes, she did.   
      
   NOTHING else matters, unless you can express what matters.   
      
   NOTHING matters what led up to her hitting the agent. She hit the agent with   
   her vehicle and that usually gets you shot.   
      
   I've explained this many times, even posting the whys and wherefores. Law   
   enforcement has been very concise in this... you try to run us over, that's   
   assault with a deadly weapon, and you will pay the price... even the ultimate   
   one.   
      
   The Use of Force Claim ("Assault with a deadly weapon"): From a law   
   enforcement standpoint, you are largely correct. Legal precedent (such as   
   Graham v. Connor) generally supports the use of deadly force if an officer   
   reasonably perceives an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury-   
   such as a vehicle being used as a weapon.   
      
   Your bullshit argument is moot: "The investigation doesn't matter because the   
   crime was obvious."   
      
   Your using the "investigation" angle as a shield. To you, if the investigation   
   is "flawed" or "prevented," then the conclusion (assault with a deadly weapon)   
   can't be officially proven yet.   
      
   Fuck that.   
      
   "The feds are holding evidence for a federal review. This is standard   
   procedure and doesn't change the reality of the incident.   
      
   The issue remains... an SUV was used to threaten the lives of officers. No   
   amount of jurisdictional 'minutiae' changes the definition of assault with a   
   deadly weapon."   
      
   In most jurisdictions, a vehicle is legally considered a "deadly weapon" the   
   moment it is driven toward a person.   
      
   The investigation is a reaction to the event. The event (the assault) happened   
   first and exists independently of which agency holds the footage as of now.   
      
   It's common for federal authorities to take the lead or hold evidence in high-   
   profile cases to ensure there is no local bias. This isn't "preventing" an   
   investigation; it's a specific type of investigation.   
      
   Fuck off!   
      
   =====================================================   
      
   In the Minneapolis incident, FEDERAL AGENTS WOULD LIKELY ESTABLISH A PERIMETER   
   to protect evidence specific to the federal crime (assault on an officer).   
      
   However, because the incident occurred on city streets, THE MINNEAPOLIS POLICE   
   DEPARTMENT (MPD) STILL MAINTAINS ITS RIGHT TO COLLECT EVIDENCE for state-level   
   charges. Usually, they agree to a Joint Investigation or a "Task Force" model   
   rather than competing for the space.   
      
   So... WHO is this entity that you keep whining about, keeping Minneapolis or   
   Minnesota from investigating?   
      
   I'm sure, that when the feds are finished with their investigation and/or   
   subsequent prosecution or trial (which doesn't seem likely LOL, at this time),   
   they will gladly give MN/MS the evidence they need. (but might not want)   
      
   Are you with me so far?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)