- 94% of non-U.S. citizens sentenced in the federal system were men.
- 95% were Hispanic, 2% were Black, 2% were White, and 2% were Other races.
- Their average age was 37 years.
- 92% were illegal aliens, 6% were legal aliens, 1% were extradited aliens, and 1% were unknown status.
- 66% were from Mexico, 10% from Honduras, 8% from Guatemala, 3% from El Salvador, 3% from the Dominican Republic, and 11% originated from other countries.
- The most common guidelines under which non-U.S. citizens were sentenced include: Immigration (79%); Drug Trafficking (12%); Fraud (3%); Firearms (2%); Money Laundering (1%); and Administration of Justice (1%).2
susceptible. - ussc.gov
Renee Good's family sues Trump administration over fatal Minneapolis shooting
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
We have been debating illegal immigration’s for at least 20 years but one fact is engraved in stone:
Entering Without Authorization (Improper Entry)
Arrest and deport, it is the law.
Entering Without Authorization (Improper Entry)
Arrest and deport, it is the law.
No. The dotted line is NOT clearly under her front tire. It looks to me like it is in front of her tire. She may be 12" into the lane.
But let's assume you are correct and she is completely blocking the lane. How does Ross manage to drive around her? The fact that he drove around proves she could not have blocked him from going around.
The fact that Ross drove past her proves she wasn't blocking the lanes. The fact that eleven vehicles managed to drive past her proves she wasn't blocking both lanes.
That is so blurry you can't tell where she is. And she is certainly not blocking both lanes since the fence is hiding the cars parked on the street.
So, no, you didn't give me evidence of her blocking both lanes. You gave me evidence you will do anything for your cult leader.
Nope. Not unless she hit the agent on purpose and that is not seriously contended. She was trying to get away when the car brushed him, if it did. He immediately shot her. By the time he fired the fatal shot the car had moved all of four or five feet. To describe that distance as "felony fleeing" shows the desperation of the criminal accusations against this dead woman. And again, fleeing arrest is only a felony if the arrest is for a felony.
p.s. qualify that last statement by saying I'm not familiar with Minnesota law. I am familiar with law generally and that is what I cited. If you have exact information that supports what you say, cite it.
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Go out and accidently hit a pedestrian. You didn't do it on purpose. Then leave the scene as if it didn't happen. See what happens next.
She hit him with her vehicle as she attempted to flee being arrested. You seem to forget that another officer was attempting to open her driver's side door at that time. Good was panicking and desperate to flee the scene to avoid arrest.
She hit the officer hard enough to warrant medical attention. That is felony fleeing. She committed a hit and run (or do you really think she'd stop after hitting him because that amounts to a traffic accident?). She was fleeing from arrest, and the officers had initiated that arrest and it was in progress. That automatically makes fleeing a felony.
So, you admit that she was fleeing LE, Marty.
When Running Becomes a Crime
- Evading or Eluding: Intentionally fleeing or refusing to stop after a recognizable law enforcement officer gives a clear signal to stop (whether on foot or in a vehicle) is a distinct criminal offense.
- Resisting Arrest: If an officer is actively trying to detain or arrest you and you run away, you can be charged with resisting arrest or obstruction.
- Severity of Charges: Depending on the state and the situation, fleeing can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. Actions that involve a vehicle, reckless driving, or endanger others drastically increase the penalties
You are becoming irrelevant, Marty…not a serious poster.
Twisting yourself into a pretzel to protect felons is becoming embarrassing.
Last edited:
Depends what you mean by fleeing. She was attempting the leave the scene. What difference does it make in the context of getting shot to death?
This is the 95th time you've told us her five-foot trip was "felony fleeing". Tells us what Minnesota statute you're referring to.
She. Was fleeing LE who were trying to stop her. She committed a felony.
FAFO.
These far left loons have a difficult time trying to defend a person who was fleeing LE.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Well, I can't help it if you are so dense it takes 96 times telling you to get it to sink in.
,
Under Minnesota law, the statute governing Fleeing and Eluding is Minnesota Statutes Section 609.487. [1]
While the exact phrase "Willful Intent" is not part of the formal statute title, Minnesota courts have firmly established that fleeing is a specific-intent crime. Under Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 9, criminal intent is explicitly written into the definition of "flee" by requiring that the driver acts with the specific "intent to attempt to elude a peace officer." [1, 2]
The statute splits the offense into two distinct categories based on the method of flight:
1. Fleeing a Peace Officer in a Motor Vehicle
Governed by Subdivision 3, this is classified as a felony. [1]
- The Law: It is a crime for anyone to use a motor vehicle to flee or attempt to flee a peace officer who is acting in lawful duty, provided the driver knows (or reasonably should know) the person is an officer. [1]
- Statutory Definition of "Flee": ***Under Subdivision 1, fleeing means increasing speed, turning off headlights or taillights, refusing to stop, or using other means with intent to attempt to elude the officer*** after a signal to stop has been given.
- Penalties: The base felony carries a maximum penalty of up to three years and one day in prisonand/or a $5,000 fine, alongside mandatory driver's license revocation. Penalties escalate drastically under Subdivision 4 if the flight results in bodily harm or death (up to 40 years in prison). (Asterisks are mine).
Do better.
Last edited:
Hmm.. Nothing about fleeing being a capital crime that allows the officer to simply kill the person fleeing.
Let's look at the DoJ Justice manual which shows Ross violating policy.
1-16.200 - USE OF DEADLY FORCE AND PROHIBITED RESTRAINT TECHNIQUES
- Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
- Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
They were federal officers. Minnesota statutes don't apply to their law enforcement actions.
WCM
Verified User
Her intent has absolutely nothing to do with it.
All that matters is that the officer who shot her had reason to believe that she was using her vehicle as a weapon against him, and that it could possibly kill him.
If she threw a small spider at him, and he shot her because he was an arachnophobe, he would still be guilty, because his "irrational" fear is not a "reasonable" fear. You gotta wear big boy pants to carry a gun. But a car coming at him is good enough reason to go "PEW PEW PEW!!!!"
There are a lot of others factors at play there, regarding why he was standing there, why the riots were happening, what specific crimes Good committed that day and what the chances of a conviction for each of them truly was, etc, but all that matters regarding the possibility of a murder conviction is "Did he have sufficient reason to believe that she was trying to run him over, to use lethal force?" That's IT.
Go stand 6' in front of a car that's running, and then imagine if someone started quickly accelerating to wards you. Even if they "barely hit you", they can still do a lot of damage.
WCM
Verified User
Google search reply:
- Supremacy Clause Immunity (In re Neagle, 1890): A federal agent is immune from state criminal prosecution only if two conditions are met:
- The agent was acting within the scope of their official federal authority
- The conduct was objectively necessary and proper to perform their federal duties
I'm not 100% sure of the context that you're applying this, because I didn't go back that far, but state laws could apply to feds in some instances.
Be prepared for leftists to get hung up on this one: "The agent was acting within the scope of their official federal authority", by saying "THEY'RE NOT TRAFFIC COPS!!! THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO STOP HER!!!!"
But they had every right to stop her from "committing more felonies and misdemeanours with her vehicle". They just don't police vehicles for mediocre 'traffic violations'.
At this point let's just look at what policies Ross and the other ICE officers violated with the shooting of Good.
There is a question as to the use of force. Ross could have moved out of the way of the moving vehicle and then he fired when he was no longer in danger. TA's claim that the other officer was in danger because that officer was hanging onto the door could not be true when Ross fired through the open window unless Ross was firing at that officer.
Then we get to the actions after she was shot. They violated policy by not providing medical aid and not allowing others to provide aid.
That raises the question of how trained were the officers in deadly force which is required annually. Was this a failure at the top to not properly train?
There is a question as to the use of force. Ross could have moved out of the way of the moving vehicle and then he fired when he was no longer in danger. TA's claim that the other officer was in danger because that officer was hanging onto the door could not be true when Ross fired through the open window unless Ross was firing at that officer.
1-16.200 - USE OF DEADLY FORCE AND PROHIBITED RESTRAINT TECHNIQUES
- Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
- Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.
Then we get to the actions after she was shot. They violated policy by not providing medical aid and not allowing others to provide aid.
1-16.500 - AFFIRMATIVE DUTY TO RENDER MEDICAL AID
- Officers will be trained in, and must recognize and act upon, the affirmative duty to request and/or render medical aid, as appropriate, where needed.
That raises the question of how trained were the officers in deadly force which is required annually. Was this a failure at the top to not properly train?
1-16.600 - TRAINING
- All officers shall receive training, at least annually, on the Department's use of force policy and related legal updates.