@pusher_robot's banner p

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

				

User ID: 278

pusher_robot

PLEASE GO STAND BY THE STAIRS

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:45:12 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 278

I can definitely say that any LE shooting someone who is restrained and is not pointing a gun at someone is outside of it is outside of it.

By that rubric, if I yell "I'm going to shoot you!" and point something that is an exact facsimile of a gun at a police officer but isn't, and they shoot me, that is incompetent on their part, even though it would require psychic powers on their behalf to know the difference.

I think the problem here is that you seem to very much want to remove any subjectivity from the rubric, but this is just logically impossible without leading to absurd outcomes like the above. Subjectivity requires us to examine things like, even if there was no gun, did they believe there was? If so, why? Was that belief reasonable even if incorrect? If not, just how unreasonable was it? In this case, it hinges on factors like what the person may have said, how they may have acted, whether or not an accidental discharge took place, etc. These factors would determine whether criminal charges are appropriate, if so which ones, and whether and which workplace disciplinary actions would be appropriate.

Yes. It's adjacent to "hiding one's power level", as even if you have some political beliefs, you understand there's nothing positive that can be accomplished by talking about them in social situations. And in many cases, simply choosing to talk about it less actually causes you to care less, and happiness increases as a result.

I don't know, but that's at least relevant information.

Whether this charge is actually true can be debated separately, with no reference to Pretti's character or past actions.

This is not correct. If you're trying to assess the reasonableness of an officer's belief that someone's actions created an fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, you would have to take into account knowledge about that person's behavior and past actions that the officer actually possessed at the time of the decision point.

The central problem remains: it doesn't matter what the law says, if future administrations decide to not enforce it.

I thought their home country refused them, as would be sensible for known criminals

I always heard in the US it was due to the huge surplus of Union Army uniform elements after the end of the Civil War when professional police forces were getting organized.

I'm arguing the state should exercise discretion in punishing crimes

We tried that, and look where it got us. If there is a better option, I don't know how to achieve it without writing it into law and enforcing it rigorously.

In 2025, there were roughly 15,000 violent crimes in the entire state of Minnesota. Let us assume all of them occurred in Minneapolis, all of them were committed by a different illegal immigrant who was immediately released on bail or sentenced to ten minutes by liberal activist judges and then released, and all of those illegals reside in Minneapolis today. 170 murderers, 2159 rapes, 2836 robberies, 9826 aggravated assaults, all of them committed by a different illegal immigrant who is now at large in Minneapolis.

ICE has deployed approximately 3000 federal agents to Minneapolis. Supposing ICE is in fact, after the bad guys, they should probably be done by now, because they only had to arrest five people each in order to get all of the highly criminal illegals out.

This doesn't make sense to me. Why is 2025 a relevant time period? If someone commits crimes in 2016 and is still in the country with a valid final order of deportation, they should be allowed to stay? It's important to remember that deportation is not a punishment. Deporting people with final orders and criminal records is about prioritizing removal of people who have demonstrated that even beyond immigration law, they are not willing to comply with our rules. The rest also have no just cause or right to stay, but their removal is less urgent if they are avoiding victimizing other Americans.

I am not sure there is a statue against annoying and frustrating law enforcement. Perhaps if they coordinated to prevent the arrest of anyone specific, that could be an obstruction charge.

There are definitely local laws against stalking and harassment, and obstruction of law enforcement does not need to be physical. However, it seems extremely unlikely that charges will be pursued.

There might be an independent causal factor.