Woman shot and killed by ICE officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Stafire 00. .31 "I have discovered the article I read clearly misquoted the judge being a state judge. However, still, the order means nothing if the protesters are not protesting peacefully and are obstructing"

Thanks for explaining you read a mis quoted articles and that formed your opinion. However the link on Gransnet told us on the first page of the court document that this was a Federal case in a Federal Court and the defendants were Federal organisations and federal officers including ICE.

Therefore ICE officers in Minnesota must comply with the order, act within the law and can be sued as non compliant with this order if not. They need to secure evidence to prove they are acting within the law in cases where protestors may take legal action against DHS / any individual ICE officer to defend their actions therefore.

For example- in this case the defence put forward by the Dept Homeland Security/ICE was that ICE officers: stopped/arrested/pepper sprayed / pointed firearms at etc the various protesters because they were "protesting violently" and the officers had a reasonable suspicion that they had "probable cause" to do so under 18 USC section 111 as it is a crime to "forcibly assault, resist, impede or intimidate or interfere with a Federal Officer engaged in the performance of their duties".

However ICE provided no evidence to support their allegations against the protesters. There was no evidence put forward that they were protesting violently within the definition of the law. The judge found the ICE officers allegations were contradicted by evidence available including video evidence. There was no evidence that any officers had been "forcibly assaulted, intimidated, interfered with etc" by the protestors

Regarding Renee Good's fatal shooting, I have seen no evidence that she "forcibly assaulted, interfered with, intimidated" etc ICE officers such that they had a reasonable belief that she was committing a crime under 18 USC section 111 law, such that it was reasonable to shoot her directly at close range.

The investigation report, if made available to the public, will prove interesting reading.

I can't not post this today, on MLK day here in the US. Especially with what is happening in Minnesota.

youtube.com/shorts/0hWykRZGoXE?si=fwV2sfA7Ut88nA5-

LemonJam

Starfire 06.40: Good point. If protesters continue to harass and obstruct, which btw obstruction isn't just un peaceful, it's against the law, then it's not peaceful and this order means nothing, really".

Lemonjam- I respectfully disagree- the injunction order, disseminated to all federal agents in Operation Surge Metro in Minnesota means they must obey and comply. The 83 page court judges determination also sets out what protestors can do when they are exercising their First amendment protest rights thereby not breaking the law.

Starfire57 Mon 19-Jan-26 05:23:49: "The state cannot override the feds. The agents must do their job, as necessary. If someone is blocking their car, they can move that person. If someone attacks them, they can defend themselves, arrest them, order or no order"

The order means a lot more than "nothing really" Starfire - it was in fact issued by a Federal Court, not the "state", i.e the Federal Court issued an injunction to ICE and Covered Federal Agents- "Minnesota Court Injunction order issued to ICE- Covered Federal Agents 16/1/2"- link posted by imaround 17/1/26 at 02.34.

I have discovered the article I read clearly misquoted the judge being a state judge. However, still, the order means nothing if the protesters are not protesting peacefully and are obstructing.

Wyllow3

here is 3 minutes of Bernie Saunders talking about the event and its wider significance. a "must watch"?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Z_RdZOYrE

Used to really like Bernie. But, he is a career politician and they often switch gears to suit the agenda. Here's a great example I found when he was talking a few years back.

x.com/i/status/2011514289627283567

Thanks imaround. I didn't think that his reasons were legal. That means he is acting beyond his legal powers , and that means he is acting like a dictator.

Starfire 06.40: Good point. If protesters continue to harass and obstruct, which btw obstruction isn't just un peaceful, it's against the law, then it's not peaceful and this order means nothing, really".

Lemonjam- I respectfully disagree- the injunction order, disseminated to all federal agents in Operation Surge Metro in Minnesota means they must obey and comply. The 83 page court judges determination also sets out what protestors can do when they are exercising their First amendment protest rights thereby not breaking the law.

Starfire57 Mon 19-Jan-26 05:23:49: "The state cannot override the feds. The agents must do their job, as necessary. If someone is blocking their car, they can move that person. If someone attacks them, they can defend themselves, arrest them, order or no order"

The order means a lot more than "nothing really" Starfire - it was in fact issued by a Federal Court, not the "state", i.e the Federal Court issued an injunction to ICE and Covered Federal Agents- "Minnesota Court Injunction order issued to ICE- Covered Federal Agents 16/1/2"- link posted by imaround 17/1/26 at 02.34.

Thanks Wyllow.

*thugs not things

How these ICE things are treating people in Minneapolis (and all over the country).

www.kwtx.com/2026/01/18/ice-officer-seen-kneeing-detained-man-head/

And more proof it isn't really about the drugs. How many drug dealers has he pardoned now?

www.4029tv.com/article/president-trump-pardons-rep-womacks-son/70033310

ICE is still in Minneapolis taking people off the street illegally.

www.fox9.com/news/st-paul-public-works-says-employee-illegally-detained-ice

here is 3 minutes of Bernie Saunders talking about the event and its wider significance. a "must watch"?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4Z_RdZOYrE

Trump just wants an excuse to cancel the mid terms imo. He wants trouble.

No it is not Marima. Especially since all he has to do to end this is stop occupying the city with his untrained personal police force.

Now, why has my post been deleted? I didn't think I'd been particularly bad..

I wonder if these are actually, legally the 'certain circumstances' that allow Presidents of the USA to deploy troops on home ground?
Kent State massacre springs to mind

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

www.yahoo.com/news/articles/protesters-disrupt-minneapolis-church-over-174812682.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Oreo

It’s what US Presidents are allowed to do in certain circumstances Maremia

Yes they are allowed to. Not to take any protest rights away but to protect the community if protestors decide to infringe on others by attacking people, burning buildings, impeding, blocking, etc of officers and citizens who are just trying to go about their day.

A group of protesters entered a church today and interrupted services because the pastor used to work for ICE.

They are starting to get too cocky.

It’s what US Presidents are allowed to do in certain circumstances Maremia

Isn't that what Dictators do?

I read that Trump is preparing to bring in the troops.

LemonJam

Starfire 06.40: Good point. If protesters continue to harass and obstruct, which btw obstruction isn't just unpeaceful, it's against the law, then it's not peaceful and this order means nothing, really".

I respectfully disagree- the injunction order, disseminated to all federal agents in Operation Surge Metro in Minnesota means they must obey and comply. The 83 page court judges determination also sets out what protestors can do when they are exercising their First amendment protest rights thereby not breaking the law.

The state cannot override the feds. The agents must do their job, as necessary. If someone is blocking their car, they can move that person. If someone attacks them, they can defend themselves, arrest them, order or no order.

Oreo

Why aren’t the local police there doing anything? Surely they need to be a presence when any large group are protesting?
It shouldn’t be left to immigration to try and do their own job and keep protesters at bay.
If they had been there then they would have told the woman in the car to park it properly and join other protesters and this tragedy would never have happened.

The state leaders are not allowing their police to assist. They are fighting the federal government, refusing to cooperate.

More Constitutional rights being violated.

abcnews.go.com/US/lawyers-allege-dept-homeland-security-denying-legal-counsel/story