Ещё к вопросу об идиотах

[realwired]

 
Просто чтобы было:

Quote start:

1. Some argue that ICE agents are not “police” and therefore lack the

authority to stop, detain, or command civilians. That argument is

legally incorrect. ICE agents are sworn federal law enforcement

officers under the Department of Homeland Security. Congress

explicitly granted immigration officers arrest and detention authority

under 8 U.S.C. § 1357, including the authority to carry firearms and

make warrantless arrests when offenses are committed in their presence

or when they have reasonable grounds to believe a felony is being

committed. Their authority derives from federal statute, not from

state or municipal police powers. Federal law enforcement does not

become optional simply because the officer is not wearing a city or

county badge.
 

2. Second, she refused to comply with a lawful order. Once she failed to

exit the vehicle, the encounter escalated from investigation to

resistance. You do not get to debate lawful commands roadside. The

Supreme Court has consistently held that evasive behavior and refusal

to comply with lawful authority contribute to reasonable suspicion and

justify escalation. Illinois v. Wardlow makes that clear. Any

challenge to the legality of the order belongs in court, not in the

moment.
 

3. Third, and decisively, she accelerated her vehicle while a federal

agent was positioned in front of it. At that moment, intent stopped

mattering. A motor vehicle becomes a deadly weapon when used in a

manner capable of causing serious bodily harm or death. Supreme Court

precedent is explicit on this point. Tennessee v. Garner allows deadly

force when an officer has probable cause to believe a suspect poses a

significant threat of death or serious physical injury. Scott v.

Harris, Brosseau v. Haugen, and Plumhoff v. Rickard all recognize that

a vehicle used during resistance or flight constitutes a lethal threat

justifying deadly force.

4.There will be endless arguments about tactics and whether the officer

should have placed himself in that position. Legally, those arguments

are void once an officer is in immediate danger. The law does not

require officers to absorb deadly force because someone else made a

reckless decision. The moment her foot hit the accelerator with an

officer in front of the vehicle, the threat became immediate and

lethal under settled law.

5. These three actions obstructing the roadway, refusing a lawful order,

and accelerating a vehicle toward a federal agent form a textbook

use-of-force analysis under Supreme Court precedent. I hate that it

happened. But the law is unforgiving in situations like this. Pride

will sometimes send people charging into storms they didn’t pack for.

 

Quote end 

Comments

[realwired]

4., first paragraph.

[dennisgorelik]

> 4., first paragraph.

Do you mean the first _sentence_?
"There will be endless arguments about tactics and whether the officer
should have placed himself in that position."

Even if the officer put himself into that position - he could have easily step out of this position (away from the vehicle path.
Which would be much easier and safer [vs shooting] for everyone: Renee Good, people around her and for Johnathan Ross himself.