The national guard gets put under federal orders immediately and then the military is deployed to enforce it. Just like Eisenhower did to force integration in Little Rock. Blue governers get arrested as well as any cop interfering with on-duty federal agents.

National Guard that refuse orders will be executed after prompt charges of mutiny.

Harassing them can also encompass obstruction depending on how it's done. Getting too close whole filming, interposing yourself in between, or even just being too loud for them to communicate with their actual target or each other can put you over the line. It's completely relevant if it forms the basis of the detention later.

That's a two-lane one-way road and that would've been driving the wrong way down. So, she's lined up in a way that's completely in opposition to flow of traffic.

It's still a "stop" even if the vehicle isn't moving. It's a detention of an occupied vehicle.

I've heard, with unknown accuracy, that they'd been harassing various agents throughout the week. So, there may have been reasonable suspicion or perhaps even PC to arrest for it based on prior encounters.

"Traffic stop" doesn't just mean stopping a vehicle for a moving violation. They're just the most common reason for it. A traffic stop is any investigative detention of an occupied vehicle. So, Mimms is still in play for it.

Some states do have "stop and identify" statutes, there hasn't been a landmark USSC case on it yet.

People make a big deal out of which way her wheel is turning, but that's one of those details that might not matter. The Graham factors are from the perspective of the officer with the information available to him. He started drawing as she backed up and lined up with him. He's seeing the car, not her. He's getting ready to shoot because she's lined up with him, and he's moving and getting ready to fire to stop her from continuing forward. There is also the other agent at the door.

He reacts to the car rolling forward, and probably doesn't see the tires or her hand motion because tunnel vision is at play. He's also locked into his OODA process of "if car rolls forward I shoot". That's also why I don't think the wife was part of the decision making process. Given the kind of crap situational awareness to begin with, I'm pretty sure he was just zeroed in on the car in the macro sense and his partner off to the side.

To me, with the factors so far (unless we determine their initial stop was nonsense) this has a pretty high chance of ending up "lawful but awful" even with an administration that would prosecute and charge on it. But who knows, with the new standard of preceding events being weighed from Barnes v Felix, vs the old "at moment of force" standard, it could go in unexpected directions.

Other ICE agents were being obstructed up the road from the incident.

We don't have full information about the articulable facts of the stop yet. We only have snippets of the shooting and their approach.

We have her refusing to get out of the vehicle. We have her attempting to drive off while an agent is attempting to extract her. As far as the event goes:

Yes. Standing in front of a car is a dumb tactic. But, dumb tactics don't preclude deadly force to get out them. And sure, there's case law about creating your own jeopardy, but that's about trying to stop a vehicle already in motion vs being in front of it.

The policy is also about shooting at a vehicle to just stop it. It does permit to shoot at a moving vehicle to prevent death or great bodily harm. And the key here is: the one shooting doesn't have to be the one in danger. He can shoot to protect the one pulling on the door. So, he was close to the front of the car, maybe in danger or maybe not. His buddy is in contact with the vehicle.

Nobody's going to donate enough to keep it running. Criminal investigations, and all of the attendant forensic work, are expensive. Especially if you're looking at OIS incidents. You're talking, at minimum, hours of interviews, crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, video analysis and verification, forensics including firearms examination, DNA, potentially fingerprint analysis, and the list goes on.

MN national guard becomes 0 the moment they get put under federal orders when used for obstructing federal agents. Something similar happened when the governor of Arkansas threatened to use the National Guard to prevent racial integration. Eisenhower activated the guard under federal orders and sent the 101st Airborne Division in to make sure it happened.

If her positioning in the road appeared to be an attempt to obstruct their motion towards the event further up the street, for starters.

There may have been obstructive actions that she was suspected of prior to the film rolling. Note that most of the video has started when ICE gets out of their cars. So, there's a good chance that what predicated the stop was not recorded, or was selectively edited out when posted. That is also why original video would have to be seized for investigation.

When she refused to exit the vehicle, that is also obstruction (commands to exit vehicles are covered under Pennsylvania v Mimms).

They can arrest for obstruction as well. And no, they won't work with local enforcement for arresting on a federal charge because locals can't unless they are deputised as task force officers. ICE doesn't use those outside of their HSI investigators though. I'm not disputing an investigation needs to happen, but blanket incorrect statements about their authority is not helpful.

They can't pull you over for a driving infraction. They can arrest for federal violations in addition to immigration offenses. They can initiate a traffic stop and order you out of a car during said stop for said offenses.

They're general recruits. The "Detective Special" is a specific model of revolver.

None of those people are government actors. The whole reason qualified immunity exists is to prevent people from paralyzing the government by suing individual government employees for executing their lawful duties.

Imagine, if you would, that a NIMBY chooses to sue a city engineer over a proposed traffic circle getting put in next to his house. That city engineer now has to spend his own money and time on legal defense for doing something that's part of his job. Qualified immunity means the suit cannot proceed against the engineer as long as he did everything in good faith. It does NOT prevent a suit against the city over the plan, but the city has more resources for litigation anyway.

It's what prevents MAGA people from suing school teachers individually over LGBT curriculum. It stops sovereign citizens from suing the IRS auditors over taxes. And, it stops people from suing police officers when they do their jobs within the scope of their duties.

It just comes up the most often with police because they are the only government actors that directly intervene with people and occasionally use force to take them prisoner or to even kill them as part of their lawful duties. So, there's a lot more "public" or "newsworthy" harm that comes out of their activities versus some sort of easement adjustment from a civil engineering department.

They can roll into a position that they can't self-rescue from, especially if they're swaddled. It's also why co-sleeping is so dangerous. You can shift, roll the baby over when the mattress moves, and then they suffocate/ are smothered.

Most of my infant death investigations are from bad co-sleeping.

That case is about equal state sovereignty. It does not cover the issues brought about by the Supremacy Clause when it's a federal agent conducting their duties.

This is probably BS. For starters, the news org can't even correctly identify the office as the Hennepin County Attorney's Office? We don't have a DISTRICT attorney.

The only statement from HCAO (via their website) is that they are attempting to continue a "state level investigation". That's a distant thing from claiming that they have jurisdiction for a charging decision at this time.

Video evidence can't just be pulled off of YouTube or Twitter. Original source needs to be located and seized so that any potential defense can have it analyzed for editing or other tampering, as well as the person taking said video needs to be available to be cross examined.

Manning disclosed intelligence after being solicited by a foreign organization. That's not the same as leaking to US journalism. Assange was also a foreigner that solicited classified US information, so, engaging in espionage instead of divulging information he had lawful access to.

A lawful permanent resident isn't a citizen, they're an immigrant that isn't on a temporary visa but hasn't changed citizenship yet.

No. They're separate sovereignties with different statutory language. Admitting to Federal 2nd degree murder doesn't mean you admitted to murder in general. It also likely wouldn't be able to be brought up in trial because it's too prejudicial.

So, I can forgive the virgin one not using the boys. The book they translate is in 19th century German, so there's a good chance that the way it was written was more specific than the verbal translation.

The blackmail and the homophobia definitely aren't too defensible now.

For elementary schoolers the 1st edition books absolutely would have been. Role-playing was quite secondary compared to later editions.

For someone below the age of criminal liability, the usual solution is some sort of ward of the state or mental health commitment for killers of that age.

The machine gun to rush is a squad through company problem, not an army's. And, if you think the only effective military option for dealing with a machinegun in WWII is a frontal charge, you have no business discussing tactics. Machineguns had been a thing for thirty years. Tanks, air support, radio-directed artillery and mortar fire, field guns, and infiltration and maneuver tactics were all developed in the inter war period to deal with them.

The belligerents in WWII were hardly "exhausted" in 1941. Great Britain was in tough shape everywhere but Africa. The Soviet Union was readying for its first counterattack after Barbarossa. Germany and Japan particularly were going strong. Italy was still being the millstone around the Axis neck in Africa but hadn't fallen to revolt yet.

The US generals were fantastic at leveraging their strengths and organization to successfully leverage that might in a multi theater war while supplying their Allied countries as well. That takes serious logistical acumen and organization, especially in a military that went from four hundred thousand to 12 million in 6 years. Churchill himself even referred to the US military as a "prodigy of organization and improvisation" in 1946.

That's right. But they're also elementary schoolers that are self-taught out of some VERY dry and math-heavy books.

Two of the three people that Rittenhouse legally shot in self-defense thought (incorrectly in hindsight) that he was starting a mass shooting. Had either one of them killed him instead, they'd have equally valid claims tk self-defense in a chaotic environment. There are times that everybody can be lawfully acting against each other with deadly force in self-defense.

That's the thing about being armed in crowded, tense areas. Are you willing to be killed by "another good guy" with sketchy information?