XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, can.politics   
   From: invalid@none.com   
      
   In article <10k9ggv$dphk$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com   
   says...   
   >   
   > On 2026-01-14 16:52, Skeeter wrote:   
   > > In article <10k95ps$8549$8@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com   
   > > says...   
   > >>   
   > >> 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?   
   > >   
   > > So?   
   > >>   
   > >>>   
   > >>> "   
   > >>>   
   > >>> 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.   
   > >   
   > > You have never been in that position so STFU.   
   > >   
   > >   
   >   
   > How do you know what I've done.   
   >   
   > I know that I don't stand in front of vehicles that are in the middle of   
   > turning around with a 3-point turn.   
      
   She wasn't doing that. She was told to get out and she   
   FAFO.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)