- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 16,898
- Reaction score
- 20,708
Kristi Noem herself went on TV last night and said there was no ongoing operations the agents were just stuck in the snow. lmao
Do you just lie for your convenience hoping people won't check? They said they were in the middle of an operation when they got stuck in the snow. Two things can be true at once.
Here is the press conference.
Starting at 1:32 of the video:
"at 10:25 AM Central Time, immigration and customs enforcement were carrying out LAWFUL OPERATIONS here in Minneapolis. Because of the adverse weather... one of the vehicles became stuck and ensnared in the snow. Law enforcement were attempting tp push out this vehicle when a mob of agitators that were harassing them all day began BLOCKING THEM IN, shouting at them and impeding law enforcement operations..."
"She had been STALKING AND IMPEDING their work all throughout the day..."
You are so far out of your depth it's not even funny.
The "moment of threat" (your "she hit him") does not matter. Get that through your thick skull. In Barnes v. Felix (2025) SCOTUS rejected a “moment-of-threat only” approach and emphasized that courts can’t ignore what happened before the trigger pull.
What that means in plain English is that the totality of the stop must be taken into account. Was the stop justified? Was the attempted detention legal? Did officers make an appropriate attempt to de-escalate the situation? Did the officers make every attempt to avoid "creating the threat" by putting themselves in the path of the vehicle? All of this is considered in Barnes v. Felix.
These officers seem to have attempted to illegally detain a woman that was protesting, escalated the situation, and created the very threat they are attempting to use as justification for deadly force. If this is the case, then this IS NOT a justified use of force, and they will be charged with manslaughter.
"Barnes v. Felix has supremacy. A Supreme Court decision interpreting the Constitution controls what is lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and no DHS policy can override or narrow that constitutional standard."
So you admit she hit him with the car?
Because everyone here seems to claim she didn't him him.
That's all I'm refuting. Because I have this thing... it's called eyeballs.
I'm not arguing against all of this legalese or who is responsible and liability. I haven't made up my mind yet on any of that until we learn more.
Last edited:
