45. Wait. You aren't really going to mention the administrations framing of the incident as self defense ... ... the next day ... .. when the mayor, the police chief, and then Governor were calling it "murder" barely an hour after the shooting??

Please.

BOTH sides are wrong. BOTH sides should have said "we are concerned about the incident that took place. We look forward to a full and thorough accounting of what happened through the upcoming investigation."

But they didn't. The Minneapolis team was immediately fanning the flames of hatred and anger by trying to control the narrative with their claims of "murder" before the body of Ms. Good was even cold.

The administration had to fight that narrative with their own.

It was a repulsive display of vulgarity and ugliness on the part of then Minneapolis leaders.

But of course you completely left that part out.

Detained? For how long? Did they continue to detain them after their citizenship was proven?

These are important questions.

I'm not saying that there haven't been mistakes. Clearly there has been a very small percentage of mistakes, and they deserve to pay DEARLY for them.

But overall? What they are doing is clearly codified by law and legitimate enforcement.

Large scale and massively funded? Sure. Unnecessary? Debatable. But get it.

I just don't understand the absolute hatred of it. It's legitimate federal le work. If you don't like the expenditure? Make sure you vote for a guy next cycle that won't spend that kind of money.

The only thing that makes sense is: I hate Trump. He likes ice ergo I have to hate ICE.

6: anyone driving a car straight AT an officer would believe they were under threat of great bodily harm or death. Especially an officer that had been hit by one.

7. I don't know what they were doing opening the door for sure. The investigation will have to determine that. My assumption is they were placing her under arrest for obstructing a federal officer. Something WELL within their rights and authority to do. She may not have agreed with the charge or want to be arrested, but your fight the police in court, not the street. She took exactly the wrong action.

Her motivations don't matter. What matters is the legal definition of when deadly force can be used:

"Would a reasonable officer believe there was a threat of death or great bodily injury to himself or others."

He doesn't have to know her intent. He only has to see a vehicle coming at him to be LEGALLY JUSTIFIED.

Read that again.

I didn't say "right." The right thing to do and the legal thing to do are not necessarily related.

Cops, by precedent, have no duty to retreat. They don't have to "get out of the way." They can, but legally they are not required to do so.

Yes policy says don't put yourself in front of a vehicle. But that is not an absolute rule. If he was moving to the drivers door to assist his partner in her lawful arrest, he is under no obligation to take the extra time to walk behind the car to do so.

The two shots through the drivers window are concerning. But again it will come down to the LEGALITY of it. There is a legal concept for a "continuous act". So if all three shots are judged to be part of the same action, and the first shot is justified, they all will be. If they believe there was a significant enough pause between any shots, then they will be judged separately.

Personally, I don't think this will even be presented to a grand jury By the AUSA.

Defend their neighbors? Yes. That makes sense. Protect pedophiles, fraudsters, spouse abusers, drunk drivers that are here illegally, from seeing an immigration judge.

Huh. That makes total sense.

God knows we don't want those here illegally to have to see a judge.

Oh major skip there. Not execute, ensure they see a judge. But I can't wait for all the people to latch onto that one spell check mistake.

Right because let's ignore the fact that when they go unmasked, jerks DOXX them so that people can threaten them and their families, show up at their homes to protest, and other ridiculous crap. All over political differences.

Here's the stellar logic:

I hate Trump. Trump likes ICE, therefore I must hate ICE.

Meanwhile, ICE serves a very clear and necessary purpose. If you are in the country illegally, you are subject to apprehension, being put before an immigration judge where you can plead your case to be able to stay legally.

Thats the way the system works. It's the way it's supposed to work. Is the way we should all WANT it to work.

I honestly can't see any reason why someone doesn't want an agency to monitor immigration and execute those that enter illegally see a judge, and if ordered out, are sent on their way.

Anyone that hates ICE, hates due process.

It's just true. If someone has seen a judge and been ordered to leave the country, appealed it and been ordered out again by the appellate judge, what's the problem with them being sent out? If you are against that, you don't want due process, you want a rubber stamp court that just approves every application to stay.