Woman shot and killed by ICE officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota

I was struck by the approach and case presention of the Defendants. The key and often quoted defence of ICE enforcement actions against individuals claiming they were obstructing or interfering with their duties. Plus no sworn affidavit witness evidence provided at all, which undermined its defence.

This case precedent and order disseminated to Operation Surge Metro ICE officers makes clear they MUST NOT retaliate
against persons engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activities or detain anyone in retaliation towards "protected conduct" and "in the absence of showing probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime etc. This precedent and referral to this injunction order can be considered in the Good investigation and outcome report. The use of bystander real time video and audio evidence should necessarily be taken into account as this judge ordered that those in the vicinity were exercising their first amendment rights by securing such evidence.

The order explicitly sets out that Federal Officers must not stop or detain drivers and passengers where there is no reasonable , articulable suspicion they are forcibly obstructing or interfering with covered federal agents, or otherwise violating 18 USC section 111. Now this order sets that precedence and expectation, it would be remiss for the GOOD shooting investigation not to include this consideration and necessarily provide sworn affidavit evidence to support its case. If it does not I would suggest DHS opens itself up to litigation risk.

David 05.27- the court case just quoted included plaintiff's named but closely situated to events in question. They did throw things, e.g snowballs etc at the agents. The judge considered they were not outside their rights to protest under first amendment and they were not arrested.

Thank you LemonJam!

I think this is an important time to circle back to this article after that amazing recap of the restraining order.

www.fox9.com/news/border-patrol-chief-was-outright-lying-about-previous-ice-surge

imaround 05.38- the order is a court injunction and has to be disseminated to all agents in Minnesota Operation Surge Metro within 72 hours.

I would suggest this order emboldens Minnesota residents to continue with heir protests and take video evidence and if they see any officer breach the order, are able to report such behaviour providing their evidence to police authorities accordingly. Plus no doubt they will be emboldened to shared with media outlets.

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.

Sorry, I apologise for my mistake in my 13.37 post Kristi Noel and all others are the Defendants in this case.

LemonJam

imaround 05.38- the order is a court injunction and has to be disseminated to all agents in Minnesota Operation Surge Metro within 72 hours.

I would suggest this order emboldens Minnesota residents to continue with heir protests and take video evidence and if they see any officer breach the order, are able to report such behaviour providing their evidence to police authorities accordingly. Plus no doubt they will be emboldened to shared with media outlets.

Yes, as long as they are not emboldened to be violent or obstructive.
After what happened recently tho, I have my doubts that they would.

I do hope it does go to trial, for Kristi Noem.

Obstruction: what's allowed/ not allowed in legal first amendment activity was considered by the judge.

The defendant's/DHS relied on 18 USC section 111 to define "obstruction" wherein it states it is a crime to "forcibly assault, resist, impede or intimidate or interfere with an Federal officer
engaged in the performance of their duties". The defendants/DHS defence in the cases of the various plaintiffs relied on this- and it is the refrain we see and hear from DHS most often in media outlets- and from Kirsti Noem soon after Renee Good's fatal shooting.

E.g. Page 58 the defendants/DHS argued for example that one of the plaintiffs, Noor, was protesting "in a violent protest and therefore not engaged in protected First Amendment activity and therefore there was probable cause to arrest him", even if such judgement was "mistaken" (this was another defence strategy tactic at various stages).

The judge rejected the defendant's claim on all counts as at no time could Noor be seen "physically interfering with the agents, nor threatening them". Therefore there was "no basis to conclude the officers had even a mistaken probable cause to place him under arrest. The judge concluded Noor will likely succeed on the merits of his claim he was arrested in retaliation for engaging in protected First Amendment Right activity"- page 59.

Relating this precedent to Renee Good's shooting, in the real time video evidence I saw and vent the ICE officers video released a bit later, did not show her "physically interfering with the agents, nor threatening them". ICE officer released video evidence begins with her in a stationary vehicle with her saying "Thats fine dude, I"m not mad at you"- another ICE officer said "get out of the car" (but ICE officers didn't have any grounds to stop her or order her to get out of her car according to this judge ) several times, shots then heard- vehicle then drives ands swerves then finishes.

I would assume any potential, post mortem litigation for Renee Good might rely on this legal interpretation and precedent to claim that at no stage was Renee Good "physically interfering with the agents, nor threatening them" and therefore the ICE officer in question had no probable cause, or even mistaken probable cause, to conclude she was engaged in criminal activity. On that basis a claim could potentially be made that ICE denied Good her First Amendment right activity.


The defendants in this case used the grounds that the plaintiffs were obstructing them in their duties- clearly The defendants definition of "obstruction" was not found evidenced.

More Constitutional rights being violated.

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

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.

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.

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

Isn't that what Dictators do?

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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