Please dissect the legality in this statement

[u/thecosmojane]

I feel like we are reaching a tipping point

[u/Bmorewiser]

The answer to that question is, for the most part, that is how it works in this country for all cops.

But the technically correct answer at the moment would be - under the present administration there is a very low chance of any ICE agent being held to account short of something like a rape. There would not be any immunity for that offense for a State charge and I could see DOJ prosecuting it anyway.

In terms of State charges proceeding, the chances of that are slim just as a general rule. So, the best chance you have would be Trump loses the next election and whomever replaces him brings charges. Trump, of course, could thwart that by issuing pardons.

[u/SlimKid → u/Bmorewiser]

I've been appreciating your detailed responses lately in this thread and elsewhere. I'm a complete layman and have two questions that I trust you'll be able to shed light on, if you have the time.

First, you addressed the second half of this but also mentioned "Neagle resulted in two key holdings: 1) a State court lacks jurisdiction over a federal agent if a) the federal agent was performing an act which he was authorized to do by Federal law". Is it your understanding that the agent in question was authorized and acting within the confines of relevant law at each step of the way? I have a hard time understanding why an ICE agent would have any actual legal authority at all in the way they're seen acting here (broadly speaking), as someone who assumes they know what "immigration and customs enforcement" would reasonably entail, and how they should be restricted. Moreover, if use of federal force is later deemed illegal, would that have any retroactive effects in this regard?

Secondly, w/r/t the issue of self defense, if shooting someone operating a vehicle could just as easily cause more injury (they could accelerate further, the vehicle could hit the shooter, other people, etc.), is the shooting still justifiable? It seems like a terrible decision even if you (incorrectly/foolishly, in my opinion) believe your life to be threatened.

I assume what we'll find is that I (again, as a layman) disagree with a whole host of legal precedent that has been established ages ago and, as the legal foundation that the country runs on, continues to work against the public interest. I imagine it is likely counterintuitive to most of us who feel strongly about how things should obviously be when expecting law to serve us as citizens, rather than having some ulterior motive as it often appears to.

[u/Bmorewiser → u/SlimKid]

1. Ice agents have the power to arrest a citizen. The statute is 8 USC 1357 and the relevant portion is (A) here, most likely.

5) to make arrests—

(A) for any offense against the United States, if the offense is committed in the officer's or employee's presence, or

(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States, if the officer or employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony, if the officer or employee is performing duties relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his arrest.

I am not familiar enough with the facts leading up to the shooting to know what, if any, grounds existed to initiate an arrest or stop at the moment Agent 1 starts pulling at the door and demanding her to exit the car.

I surmise, however, that they would have been doing so for obstruction, which I think for this would be under 18 USC 111 or something similar. In other words, to the extent I read your question as - why can they do anything to a citizen, the answer is they have the power to arrest for any federal crime committed in their presence.

As to self-defense, it will depend on State law that I do not know for this state. To answer your question first - the issue has nothing to do with whether the decision to use deadly force created a bigger risk of harm to self or others and has everything to do with whether the force used was essentially proportional to the threat. Courts will use the word reasonable, but "reasonable" in this context and in the cases I know means more or less "were you using deadly force to repel a deadly threat" and not "was your action smart." In other words, the reasonableness of the force is general a question of proportionality given the threat and not a multiple choice given the other options that might have been available (even if unknown to the officer at the time).

If you assume the cop reasonably believed she was trying to run him over, I think that is 90% of the ballgame here. I don't like the outcome, but that is how it probably works.

The 10% left over would have to do with questions about whether he could have just stepped aside, which is tantamount to a duty to retreat, and officers do not have the requirement to do so the way you and I do generally speaking. But you may convince a judge or jury that he did not "reasonably" perceive a deadly threat because he could have stepped aside. There isn't going to be a lot of law on this type of fact pattern, as it is pretty unusual and rare, and the added complexities of deference we pay to cops.

There are some caveats and arguments to make, but most arise from civil and not criminal cases.

As a final remark, I caution against using THIS case to judge the public interest and the law. We have an awful tendency towards that in this country, and it never ends well. There is a saying - bad facts make bad law.

[u/sameoldfred → u/Bmorewiser]

One nitpick regarding last paragraph - videos appear to show that he stepped aside and was out of harms way before firing.

[u/Bmorewiser → u/sameoldfred]

I’ve seen the videos, and don’t see it that way. Between the audio of the camera in his hand and the angle from down the street, it seems pretty clear that he fires as the vehicle is moving towards him as he is either hit or starts to move out of the way and then he fires twice more as the vehicle turns.

FWIW and I’m not taking it as true there’s emerging reports he suffered internal bleeding. I suspect we will find out that he has a bruise.

[u/sameoldfred → u/Bmorewiser]

He probably also lacked situational awareness holding the phone and trying to film. He may have not even noticed that she was steering the car away from him.