XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics   
   From: nuh-uh@nope.com   
      
   On 2026-01-12 04:19, NoBody wrote:   
   > On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 02:50:44 -0800, "chine.bleu"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> super70s wrote:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Why won't they let the body cam footage be shown?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Why wouldn't local law work with ICE instead of turning   
   >>>> their backs? Turnabout is fair play.   
   >>>   
   >>> Probably more interested in catching actual dangerous criminals instead   
   >>> of the 74% ICEstapo detains with no criminal convictions.   
   >>   
   >> Minnesota can push this until it lands in state or federal court. Then   
   >> ask the judge to issue subpoenas.   
   >   
   > Laughter!  The Supremecy Clause is firmly established law.  Even the   
   > liberal judges know there are no grounds to rule that way.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> It will be amusing to hear why this has to be kicked to federal court.   
   >> And why DoJ can ignore subpoenas. Minnesota cannot force the DoJ and FBI   
   >> to do their jobs, but at least Minnesota can get on the record under   
   >> penalty of perjury why they are shielding a murderrer.   
   >   
   > Did you know that Minnesota law supports the agent's reaction?   
      
   Did you know that the US Customs and Border Protection "Use of Force   
   Policy" doesn't?   
      
   >   
   > "   
   >   
   > The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:   
   >   
   > (1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace   
   > officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be   
   > exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity   
   > and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further   
   > finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from   
   > excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law;   
   >   
   > (2) as set forth below, it is the intent of the legislature that peace   
   > officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life   
   > or to prevent great bodily harm. In determining whether deadly force   
   > is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the   
   > particular circumstances of each case;   
   >   
   > (3) that the decision by a peace officer to use deadly force shall be   
   > evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same   
   > situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or   
   > perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of   
   > hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account   
   > for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments   
   > about using deadly force"   
   >   
   > https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066   
      
   There is no threat of "great bodily harm" when a step to the side would   
   have completely removed him from the vehicle's path.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)