Renee Good's family is unlikely to win any money in civil Federal Court for the civily negligent acts by the Department of Homeland Security.

https://www.pbs.org/video/renee-goods-killing-tests-the-limits-of-accountability-bjjiyl/

That is something Congess should fix. The case for negligence is strong, while the case for violation of Minnesota State criminal law is weak.

@Thumpus and @13twelve, How many business days has the progressive Hennepin County Attorney (DA) declined to file state criminal charges with the supposedly overwhelming video evidence in the public domain?

"and AI (?????)" - Yes, its a great tool for good you know. Frankly I'm glad to see AI development from the Foundation's perspective, and Bill's too, and not from just from the current crop of tech bros.

Invoking the Insurrection Act was clearly the plan from the start.

@4, Let us hope not. Trump would love to; however, what he likes most is to be perceived as doing great things, even if half the country are idiots that wouldn't no greatness if it bit them. What happens when 3/4 of the country, not just half, hates him. I think if that is the outcome (probable) and those around him can show him that will be the outcome, then he won't go there.

speaking of mashing up
A Schweep, Delayed
and 'Off the Menu': 

"[Human Beings] are intelligent creatures.
They’ve shown aptitude for
problem-solving.”

'And
a 2021 study
showed that they
can experience distress and happiness.'

“But if we can make sure that 
[the schweeps are] done in a more 
compassionate, less painful way with fewer
[humanitarian] impacts, we should do so,” said the Progressive* Dem.

and speaking of Cadet Bonespurs's
Invoking  'The Insurrection Act':

Minneapolis officials said on X:
“The City of Minneapolis again demands
that ICE leave the city and state immediately.”

Dear Governor Walz: Can
You say 'General Strike'?

MAYBE try Listening
to your very Brave
High Schoolers?

'and Their
Children Shall
Lead them when
their "Leaders" Fail.'

*Thank GOD for Progressive Dems.
thank Republican 'Jesus' for
Corporate 'Centrists.'

@Ckathes,

Congress continues to be MIA. https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-senate-war-powers-2350b162d116090759a7428c4b915eea

@1: "How many business days has the progressive Hennepin County Attorney (DA) declined to file state criminal charges"

Zero days, because the county attorney hasn't ever "declined" to file charges. 😂 She and the state attorney general are conducting a criminal investigation into the ICE officer's criminal misconduct. When the investigation is complete, she will decide what criminal charges are appropriate. You can expect to see second-degree manslaughter charges at that time, but the interesting question (and one that still requires investigation) is whether you will see murder charges in either the second or first degree. 😄 Make sense? 😁

Also, a minor but perhaps telling point: this prosecutor's title is not "DA." That job does not exist in Minnesota. I'm surprised someone as, heh heh, knowledgeable as you would make a mistake on such a basic point of civics. 😜

Speaking of fascists, check out the video from Havana of the reception for the Cuban soldiers killed in Caracas during the Maduro raid. Goose stepping and peaked hats, ha ha ha! What a bunch of goons! 🤣

Emergency: Seattle’s
Hosting of The
World Cup.

what a Golden Opportunity!
for our ICESTAPO to
Round Up Oodles
of the Browns!

a Veritable
Field Day!

re: “PSA:
if law enforcement
tells you to stop. STOP.”
--Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank

and if Another
"law" enforcement
official shouts "MOVE!"
it's totes FINE to shoot in the face
ANY Citizen desperately trying to Comply.

thanks, Sheriff Skank!

I love that we live in a country where a billionaire paying the ward of a Federal Supreme Court Judge’s $6k/mo private school tuition is perfectly fine but grandparents helping pay 1/3 of that for childcare is unethical.

@6, According to you, the video in the public domain is strong enough evidence to clearly support the criminal charges you suggest. If that is the case, then what is left to complete in terms of an investigation? Nothing, because according to you they already possess sufficient evidence for the charge.

The fact that they have declined (not taken advantage of an invitation made by Minneapolis's Mayor among others.
": to withhold consent - [E.g.] We invited them but they declined." - Merriam Webster) to not charge is telling.

"(DA)" was included by me in parenthesis for the convenience of The Stranger readers who may not realize that the role has a different name in Minnesota.

After all justice delayed, is in the metaphorical sense, justice denied. So why delay if they already have, according to you, all the evidence they already need to prevail beyond a reasonable doubt? Did we not learn from the O.J. Simpson criminal trial debacle that less evidence is better. Too much evidence distracts jurors from guilt.

The County Attorney is not seeking re-election, so the given the sufficient evidence of a crime you allege she already has, the only thing holding her back would be concerns that filing charges would violate her ethical obligation to be a "minister of justice," rather than a single-mined advocate for a charge or the alleged "victim", and endanger her law license.

If she wants to seek other elected office in Minnesota, the more promptly, aggressively, and publicly she files a state criminal charge, the better her chance to be the next Mayor, Attorney General, U.S. Senator, or Governor of Minnesota. "I went all out to lead the resistance against the injustice of Trump."

@10 The wheels of justice grind slowly but they grind exceedingly fine. A week later is not justice denied, particularly when the agency is denied information held by other agencies. A year maybe. It wouldn't surprise me if it takes a month or more to charge Ross. Because there are these things called "procedures" that prosecutors have to follow to get things called "convictions." If they don't follow the "procedures" the "convictions" may not follow once they get to court. Which would be justice denied. Given how often you bleat about how there are proper processes for review of public employee conduct, I'm really not sure why you don't know that.

Unless you're being willfully ignorant of course. Occam's Razor says yes.

If you ask me, it's about time to open the connection between the 1 Line and 2 Line of the Link Light Rail!

@11, Prosecutors, when they have known suspect, charge within hours or days, 90 percent of the time. They argue for no bail or high bail. If they are prepared to be homicidal in one instance they have a low regard for life and are a danger to the public in all other instances.

So there is no procedural barrier to charging promptly for criminal homicide and it is the most frequent choice. It's in the public interest.

Everyone predicting a charge, is doing so based on evidence the Hennepin County Attorney already has access to. If it is sufficient to sustain a conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt, then they don't need anything the Feds have.

Interviews, and fruit of the interview, of Ross by the Feds, as a requirement of employment, are not admissible in a criminal court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/385/493/ Garrity v. N.J.

According to you, and Thumpus, the available video shows guilt of criminal homicide beyond a reasonable doubt. So there is no reason to not proceed with that evidence alone, unless it's not sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

@9

and the dichotomy
rematerializes every time
we support with our bombs
and all our billions a genocide on the
occupied occupants of a captive population

currently
giving US
ICESTAPO's
ICE Capades
in Minnefucking
Sot-ah. it's just Natural progression!

Brought to US by corporate America
and its ever-shilling multitudinous
pro-status quo psychophants
ever-present, even here, at
tS's Derr Schlogg.

Surprise!

@13, Still predicting, as you did in the immediate aftermath of the ramming of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, that tug escorts would be recommended by the NTSB? They didn't recommend that did they? Still predicting that some regulator will call for tug escorts? Name one that has. Got a bill that was introduced in Congress to mandate such tug escorts?

Truth is that which conforms to reality. Reality is tug escorts of ships past bridges was not worth the cost/safety benefit in the eyes of safety evaluators or policy makers then or now.

@13 I'll let Thumpus address the legal issues I miss. From my perspective, the legal questions the prosecutor would have to answer in order to charge are:

Was Ross the person who fired the gun? We have some information, but I don't know that he's been identified well enough to charge him. That may be time-consuming if ICE stonewalls requests for information.

Do the Minnesota authorities have autopsy information? If not, they're going to have to wait until the body is released by the FBI and then have another autopsy performed (assuming, as is likely, that Becca Good signs off on a second autopsy). The autopsy is important to establish whether the first shot could have killed Good. If it could have (and I think this is unlikely), then the case is more challenging. If not, the case is easier to make since the second and third shots are utterly indefensible.

What court should the criminal charges be filed in, state or federal? This is likely known, but details of the case may impact that.

Oh, and you're (predictably) wrong on the timeframe to charge murder suspects. Just a quick search shows that it took King County prosecutors 1-2 weeks to charge three different men with murder last year, because they had to do additional investigative steps because the men claimed self defense. Given that self-defense is a factor and ICE is not cooperating, this should be expected to take as long or longer.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/3-king-county-men-charged-with-murder-claim-self-defense-in-separate-shootings/

The hookah lounge shooting last year took 5-6 weeks to get to a charge.

Not only are you goddamn dumb, you don't even know how to use Google.

@15 Like I said the last time you inanely thought that the regulatory world needed to move at the pace of your goldfish-on-Adderall attention span, I never said that the NTSB would recommend tug escorts. Nobody is going to mandate tug escorts until they find out (a) if they need them and (b) if they're cost-effective. NTSB said that bridge owners should determine whether their bridges meet AASHTO standards for ship strike survivability. If those studies are going to be done at all, they're still underway because engineering takes time*. After the studies are complete, bridge owners will evaluate any deficient bridges and determine what their options are. Only at that point will tug escorts be mandated. By the port authorities and/or bridge owners, not by NTSB or Congress.

And you also (predictably) completely fail to understand how safety standards and the NTSB process work. Every safety professional would rather have passive safety measures (eg saw guards or up-armoring bridge piers) than active safety measures (eg "don't put your hand near the saw blade" or tug escorts). Active measures get chosen when passive measures are too expensive or otherwise not feasible. NTSB will very rarely recommend active safety measures.

Unlike your fire hose of ill-informed shit, which seems to be instantaneous.

@10: Oh dear, it looks like one of Professor Thumpus's slower students requires additional tutoring. 😃

The video evidence we already have supports a charge of second-degree manslaughter. However, additional evidence which we do not yet have may support a higher charge of murder. For example, if the second and third shots were fired from a position behind the driver, then the officer's claim of "fear" would be not only unreasonable but actually false. 😃 In a scenario where the officer fired from behind, he didn't shoot because he was frightened. He shot because was angry. That's murder. 😆

But neither I nor the county attorney currently know the angle from which the shots were fired, so we don't know whether this shooting was merely the crime of manslaughter or the even more serious crime of murder. 😄 That's the kind of evidence that will emerge in the course of the state- and county-led criminal investigation. Other evidence that we need to assess murder charges: statements the killer made before and after the killing, including verbal statements to witnesses as well as text messages and emails. The investigators also need to get into his phone and find out what he said to whom—as I'm sure you would want investigators to do in any murder case, right? 😄

"But wait, thumpus," you howl as your rising agitation overpowers your self-control. "Why not just charge the killer cop with manslaughter now? Right now? Right this very second? And then they can add murder charges later on, if the investigation uncovers evidence of murder. But I don't want to wait for the murder investigation, I want manslaughter charges now, now, now!" 🤪

That would be most unwise. 😃 Like all states and like the United States, Minnesota guarantees its criminal defendants the right to a speedy trial. In Minnesota, this means the trial must commence within 60 days of the date upon which a defendant pleads not guilty, unless the defendant waives the right to a speedy trial. See Minn. Stat. § 611A.033(a); Minn. R. Crim. Pro. 11.09(b).

So if the county prosecutor were to charge the killer cop with manslaughter, and the killer cop wanted to jam up the murder investigation, here's what he could do. The killer cop could choose to immediately surrender and set a first appearance within 36 hours. Minn. R. Crim. Pro. 4.02, subs. 5(1) (appearance before judge). At the first appearance, he could waive his second appearance, thereby triggering an omnibus hearing within 28 days of his first appearance. Minn. R. Crim. Pro. 11.01(a) (timing of omnibus hearing); Minn. R. Crim. Pro. 5.05 (waiver of second appearance). At the omnibus hearing, he could enter a plea of not guilty. Minn. R. Crim. Pro. 14.03(c) (timing of pleas). If he then demanded a speedy trial, the trial would have to begin within 60 days. Minn. R. Crim. Pro. 11.09(b) (trial date).

So a fast-moving defendant in a manslaughter case could trigger a trial within 90 days of charges being filed (1.5 days for first appearance, plus 28 days for omnibus hearing, plus 60 days for trial). That's not a lot of time to complete an investigation into whether murder charges might be warranted! 😂 And note that any murder charges would have to be filed before the trial begins on Day 90. Minn. R. Crim. Pro 3.04, subd. 2(b) (issuance of new complaint). Once trial begins, the prosecutor cannot subsequently charge the defendant with murder in addition to the manslaughter charge because of the double jeopardy clause. Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978) (jeopardy attaches when jury is empaneled). So the prosecution really has to get the charges right before the trial begins! 😃

Phew, what a novel! Hopefully you now understand why a prosecutor with an obvious manslaughter case but a murder case still under investigation would not rush to file charges in the manslaughter case. Rushing to file charges would only give the defendant an opportunity to spike the murder case by speeding to trial on the manslaughter case before the murder investigation was complete. That'd be a pretty boneheaded mistake for the prosecutor to make, don't you think? 😛 Not exactly in the interests of justice, right? 😜 So now you can stop bringing it up multiple days in a row because you finally get it now, yes? 😁 And also, "Thank you, Professor Thumpus," perhaps? 😘

Neale must have some kind of domination fetish with how often he exposes himself to getting dunked on here by people across the ideological spectrum. Why not just hire an escort to step on your face in stilettos and leave the rest of us alone?

"For example, if the second and third shots were fired from a position behind the driver"

Nope. When the second or third shots are fired, it will matter where the driver was relative to the shooter 1.25 seconds before that. The reaction time of the human nervous and muscular skeletal system can be that slow based on a bunch of factors. Between the recognition of the end of threat and when the fingers stop contracting on the trigger, can be that long. This unfolded very quickly.

We have precedent on that from here in Seattle and other cases around the country.

"Video analysis 'ndicated that the time from when the Subject began saying ‘nope, not reaching’ to the instant that the shot was fired was less than one second — exactly 0.64 seconds,' the 21-page report says. ....

The OPA’s investigation found that, even if Keller heard the statement, it would 'not have been possible for him to change his actions given the quickly-evolving and chaotic nature of the situation,' the OPA said in a news release Wednesday." - https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/internal-inquiry-seattle-police-officer-acted-properly-when-he-fatally-shot-a-man-on-new-years-eve/

@18, In addition to @20, there would also be substantial reasonable doubt as to the exact moment a reasonable officer would have reasonably arrived at that realization that the threat had ended, given they were in contact with the vehicle, being spun, etc.

IDK who neil is. I have been schooled by no one since the Heneppin County Attorney has yet to file a single charge.

@18, filing now based on manslaughter does not preclude later amending charges if they get additional evidence gathered and retained by the Feds, which the Feds won't cough up absent a ruling by the highest Federal Court they can get to hear litigation over a State Subpoena. Noem, Trump, and any other other Senate confirmed Federal Official that resists such a subpoena, ought to be impeached by the House and removed by the U.S. Senate; however, I have even less confidence in that happening than I do in the Hennepin County Attorney being able to conclude she can overcome reasonable doubt about the issue in @20.

The officer takes the 5th. The Jury can't be told that they refused to talk to state investigators without instant mistrial. His counsel will be able though their opening and closing statements to represent his client's belief about his beliefs about his imminent risk of great personal injury, expert testimony on how reasonable his perception was, how degraded it was by involuntary fight for flight reactions of the human body, reaction time caused delays, etc., etc. Without fiscal evidence to conclusively overcome reasonable doubt on all of those perception and timing issues, the Prosecutor can't bring a charge.

Finally, the jury would get lots of instruction that they can only consider the evidence from the officer's perspective in front of the vehicle, as it would have been perceived by the officer in real-time due to precedent on the issue. Good luck overcoming that beyond a reasonable doubt.

Absent a civil suit, which should be allowed, but for the reasons noted by the link to Amanpour and Company likely won't be, there will be no court findings on this adverse to the officer or DHS, because the Prosecutor will conclude they can't satisfy reasonable doubt based on the available evidence they can get to a jury.

Wilson's real fraud wasn't the hidden $10k+ from her parents, it was convincing the low income voters she's lived their life and is one of them.

Sounds like @20 is angling for a job within the orange piece of shit administration.

@20: I'll spare you the Full Thumpus this time, but here's a couple highlights. 😉 First let me just lol at your "1.25 seconds" reaction time. Take up a martial art or shoot at some pop-up targets sometime, and I think you'll find even the most mediocre human body can react to changes in threat levels in a fraction of that time! 🤣

Nowhere does in your link does the report of the internal investigation support your 1.25-second reaction time, so as a citation to support your 1.25-second argument, it's worthless. 😁

Even with regards to the 0.64-second reaction time at issue in that case, the report emphasizes that one of the reasons the officer was not able to react to the reduced threat within that period is because the victim had been wrestling the cops, brandishing a handgun, and reaching for a handgun for a prolonged period, thereby heightening the officer's perception that he posed a threat:

"Moreover, throughout virtually the entirety of the 22-second struggle, the Subject either held or had immediate access to the handgun, and the officers gave the Subject multiple orders to stop reaching and told him that if he continued to do so he would be shot. Given this, NE#1 had a very short timeframe in which to make the decision to use deadly force. As such, I find that this factor weighs in favor of reasonableness."

"Notably, prior to the 0.64 seconds before the shot was fired, the Subject gave no indication that he had ceased posing an imminent threat. Even presupposing that NE#1 had heard the 'nope, not reaching' statement, which he and other officers denied, OPA concludes that it would have been virtually impossible for NE#1 to have been able to change his perception that the Subject presented a threat and to make an independent decision to diametrically shift his approach to the situation and not fire. This is particularly the case when every other indicator during the pendency of this incident had been suggesting to him the opposite conclusion."

But of course, in Minneapolis, the victim was 1) not wrestling anyone at any time; 2) not carrying a handgun at any time; 3) not reaching for a handgun at any time; and 4) not disregarding warnings that she would be shot; but she did 5) give an indication that she had ceased to be a threat, in that she turned the vehicle away from the officer. To put it in OPA's phrase, "These factors weigh against reasonableness!" 🤣

The Minneapolis case is different from your Seattle case, I hope you can see, because the officer in the Minneapolis case did not shoot the victim in the course of an ongoing, 22-second-long, life-or-death physical wrestling match over control of a handgun. On the contrary, to use another OPA phrase, "every other indicator during the pendency of this incident" in Minneapolis showed that this driver, unlike the Seattle guy, was not trying to kill anyone. 😁

Now, get yourself down to the gym and play some racquetball or something until you get that "1.25-second reaction time" of yours down. That's just embarrassing! 😝

@24 FWIW, traffic signals are designed assuming ~0.5 second reaction times for a person to notice that the light has changed and put their foot on the brake.

Thumpus, you understand that facism and communism do not agree with each other right? Calling Cuban military fascist is pretty idiotic. Read a book.

Can respond in less than that time? Yes its possible. It's also possible it will be slower than that time based on a whole host of factors. It has been measured as slow as that.

Human reactions are not instantaneous. We falsely perceive them that way. It has been documented in the scientific literature and testified to by experts in trials.

An officer firing 67/100ths of a second after a suspect dropped a gun was deemed not criminally culpable here in King County. It was not even a violation of policy subject to discipline under the lesser burden of proof required to sustain discipline against a public employee and/or the applicable CBA.

A semi automatic handgun can be triggered at 3 times per second. So for the sake of argument, let's assume the ICE officer in Minneapolis recognized the threat ended after he fired shot number 1 through the windshield and decided to cease fire. Using our own Seattle case, in the next 2/3 of a second after that, he would fire two more rounds before his fingers stopped triggering.

All the dueling expert testimony on the subject in a criminal trial by experts for the Prosecution citing studies, and by the Defense citing studies, equals "reasonable doubt."

The Prosecutor, as a "minister of justice," under ABA and case law precedent, can't ethically bring charges unless they can prove the case BEYOND the "reasonable doubt" introduced by the dueling of experts testifying on the matter.

@26: “Thumpus, you understand that facism and communism do not agree with each other right?”

Two twin brothers wearing different-colored shirts. 🤣

@26: The Horseshoe Theory is strong in this one!

@30: Luckily, under the new Wilson administration, Seattle will pay neither for the costs of sweeping encampments from parks, nor for repairs to the parks thereafter!

(Seattle's residents will still pay taxes for parks, though.)

@31

former resident
The Wormtongue
Hating on Seattle's
Progressive new Mayor

Undermining her Every
Step of the Way instead of
you know, offering Constructive
Criticism, because, well, Hey, he's in
New Fucking York, and HE KNOWS BEST.

thanks,
wormmy!

now,
Kindly,
bugger off
clear back to
fucking new york,
for fucking starters.

Jammerlappen
Verdammter Jammerlappen
Verpisst sich ständig Jammern,
jammern, jammern, jammern & jammern.

--Mineralien Schlampe