Too much ice

#9,628
#9,628
Smokey123 said:
The Court has recognized that the lawful stop and arrest powers of a police officer "necessarily" include "the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof[.]‍" The Court has stressed, however, that the permissibility of an officer's use of force in a given situation must—as the text of the Fourth Amendment suggests—be "reasonable." The reasonableness requirement in the use-of-force context aligns with the Court's overall observationthat "the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness.'"

The Court has characterized the "reasonableness" standard as one that "is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application." Rather, the Court has said that determining whether a use of force is "reasonable" is a case-dependent assessment, requiring a balancing of "the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the importance of the governmental interests alleged to justify the intrusion." This judicial balancing will depend on "the facts and circumstances of each particular case[.]‍"

Beyond this general reasonableness requirement, the Supreme Court has announced some specific principles that lower courts employ to guide their assessment of the reasonableness of both lethal and nonlethal uses of force by police officers. First, reasonableness is judged"from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight." In other words, the constitutional calculus must allow "for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving[.]‍"

Second, the reasonableness inquiry is an objective one, meaning that the appropriateness of a use of force is gaugedby what is "'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting" an officer. As such, the officer's "underlying intent or motivation" is irrelevant. The Court has also identified several factors to be included in the assessment of the facts and circumstances surrounding a particular use of force: (1) "the severity of the crime at issue," (2) "whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others," and (3) whether the suspect "is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight."

Click to expand...
OK. The agent was engaged with one person who'd been obstructing his job. Another person engaged him physically from behind, thus in the agent's mind, he is engaged with two people, thus pepper spray is likely reasonable. Especially considering that the one who had engaged him from behind also happened to have been obstructing him moments earlier.

Of course, I'm no judge or constitutional lawyer, so... again... We're just two anonymous football forum posters debating a self-admittedly vague and subjective standard that you were all hot and bothered to discuss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#9,630
#9,630
Sudden Impact said:
Cell phone in hand and police officers are firm but not aggressive.
The ICE agents use of pepper spray is aggressive, Pushing a woman is aggressive.
He is not a cop he is an ICE agent.
ICE is provoking this situation by stepping out of bounds with the protestors.
Law Enforcement not the same as ICE.
Watch the full video not the parts that support your side.
ICE and Cops are two different creatures.
Easy solution, just arrest him and put him in jail and in front of a judge.
Click to expand...
ICE are full fledged federal law enforcement officers. I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and MemphisVol77
#9,631
#9,631
Orange_Crush said:
OK. The agent was engaged with one person who'd been obstructing his job. Another person engaged him physically from behind, thus in the agent's mind, he is engaged with two people, thus pepper spray is likely reasonable. Especially considering that the one who had engaged him from behind also happened to have been obstructing him moments earlier.

Of course, I'm no judge or constitutional lawyer, so... again... We're just two anonymous football forum posters debating a self-admittedly vague and subjective standard that you were all hot and bothered to discuss.
Click to expand...
And yet wasn’t arrested for obstruction

Ya I’m so hot and bothered lol
 
#9,634
#9,634
RockyTop85 said:
Second this.

You can bypass all the “old person discovers twitter for the first time” posts and the “shove the gays back in the closet” type posts.
Click to expand...

I did the same thing on FB. I was done with it. Then I just started muting my friends who talk politics too much (I rarely talk politics on FB) and it's actually pretty fun now. I follow a bunch of s***posting accounts for my favorite TV shows. Those communities are hilarious.
 
#9,636
#9,636
Smokey123 said:
Ice has no jurisdiction over citizens (except for in rare circumstances)
Click to expand...
They absolutely have arresting power over anyone who commits certain felonies in their presence or obstructs them doing their job. Anyone who shows up to interfere with ICE operations willingly put themselves under the arresting authority of ICE agents. As such, anyone putting their hands on an ICE agent while they are performing their job has done so to a federal law enforcement officer.

1769625900246.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#9,637
#9,637
Orange_Crush said:
They absolutely have arresting power over anyone who commits a felony in their presence or obstructs them doing their job. Anyone who shows up to interfere with ICE operations willingly put themselves under the arresting authority of ICE agents. As such, anyone putting their hands on an ICE agent while they are performing their job has does so to a federal law enforcement officer.

View attachment 810744
Click to expand...
Its sad that you have to tell dumb liberals this like they have no clue about the Law..
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#9,638
#9,638
Orange_Crush said:
They absolutely have arresting power over anyone who commits a felony in their presence or obstructs them doing their job. Anyone who shows up to interfere with ICE operations willingly put themselves under the arresting authority of ICE agents. As such, anyone putting their hands on an ICE agent while they are performing their job has does so to a federal law enforcement officer.

View attachment 810744
Click to expand...
So no. Your anyone who commits a felony commit is a bit of a stretch. It needs to be a federal offense if they try to arrest a US citizen
 
#9,639
#9,639
Majors said:
He lays it out pretty well. Many here has said the same thing to be rebutted with the issues he summarized. Around 7 min. mark is the part the left can’t understand in making excuses for Pretti.
Click to expand...

No point in debating with others who have already made up their mind that you’re wrong regardless of any new additional information provided.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Majors and Orange_Crush
#9,640
#9,640
NorthDallas40 said:
So no. Your anyone who commits a felony commit is a bit of a stretch. It needs to be a federal offense if they try to arrest a US citizen
Click to expand...
OK. I'll amend my post. For the purpose of the conversation per assaulting/obstructing/laying hands on law enforcement, it's a meaningless nit to pick. But OK.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#9,641
#9,641
Orange_Crush said:
ICE are full fledged federal law enforcement officers. I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here.
Click to expand...
Some compare to 5* athletes playing at a 1*. Some are just wearing the uniform or attire. Some have no field experience and some are overly aggressive. When you have two shot, many US citizens deported, broken winds, aggressive actions taken against women and children you can call them LE but their actions speak as to who they are. What's more, they have DHS covering their A$$'s it is not LE if you have to cover their backsides repeatedly. Call it what it is, no accountability for actions and excessive force used to deport. No accountability.
Just because you wear an uniform does not give you a free ticket for accountability. Due Process.
 
#9,642
#9,642
Orange_Crush said:
OK. I'll amend my post. For the purpose of the conversation per assaulting/obstructing/laying hands on law enforcement, it's a meaningless nit to pick. But OK.
Click to expand...
It’s easily to demonstrate though. If ICE witnesses a felony car theft that’s a state offense and they have no jurisdiction. If that car crosses state lines then it escalates to federal purview
 
#9,643
#9,643
Sudden Impact said:
Some compare to 5* athletes playing at a 1*. Some are just wearing the uniform or attire. Some have no field experience and some are overly aggressive. When you have two shot, many US citizens deported, broken winds, aggressive actions taken against women and children you can call them LE but their actions speak as to who they are. What's more, they have DHS covering their A$$'s it is not LE if you have to cover their backsides repeatedly. Call it what it is, no accountability for actions and excessive force used to deport. No accountability.
Just because you wear an uniform does not give you a free ticket for accountability. Due Process.
Click to expand...
I'll start responding again if you start making salient points. Deal?

(You took issue with saying that ICE is LEO. When shown to be wrong, we get this...)
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#9,645
#9,645
Sudden Impact said:
Woosh! Your comment indicates that went over your head. You are half right, but bigger eggs to fry than the pepper spray. After the incident, the ICE Agent refused to disengage after he got him to the sidewalk. Aggression beyond the requirement.
Click to expand...

You're trying way to hard. The conversation was only about an officer using pepper spray after being touched. Keep up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#9,646
#9,646
Smokey123 said:
The point isnt if he should be charged for it or not. People are looking for ways to justify the unarmed murder of a man by pointing out things that lead up to it. When it’s very debatable if all of it was even lawful in the first place.
Click to expand...

I get that and there is no justification for the officers shooting him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smokey123 and Sudden Impact
#9,648
#9,648
Orange_Crush said:
They absolutely have arresting power over anyone who commits certain felonies in their presence or obstructs them doing their job. Anyone who shows up to interfere with ICE operations willingly put themselves under the arresting authority of ICE agents. As such, anyone putting their hands on an ICE agent while they are performing their job has done so to a federal law enforcement officer.

View attachment 810744
Click to expand...
hence why I said rare circumstances. Which brings it back full circle, who was obstructing? Why weren't the girls arrested? We know Pretti wasn’t being arrested for obstruction he wasn’t who the one agent was targeting.
 
#9,649
#9,649
Sudden Impact said:
Cell phone in hand and police officers are firm but not aggressive.
The ICE agents use of pepper spray is aggressive, Pushing a woman is aggressive.
He is not a cop he is an ICE agent.
ICE is provoking this situation by stepping out of bounds with the protestors.
Law Enforcement not the same as ICE.
Watch the full video not the parts that support your side.
ICE and Cops are two different creatures.
Easy solution, just arrest him and put him in jail and in front of a judge.
Click to expand...

ICE isn't a cop 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and Orange_Crush
#9,650
#9,650
MercyPercy said:
See if you don't have a physical reaction getting tackled to the ground and beat on. Simply defending yourself is construed as resisting/fighting. I repeat, at no point in the video did he use any violence against the agents. They were using a ton of violence against him (and the woman they tossed to the ground) and he never even raised his fists. You make it sound like he was beating up on them and attacking them when it's the complete opposite.

Is struggling on the ground while agents dog pile you and hit you grounds for resisting arrest? In this screwed up system, probably. It's not grounds for dumping a mag into his back.
Click to expand...
One thing that bothers me about that picture is the absolute absence of proper trigger control. That is a Glock and his finger is inside the trigger guard well before any need to pull the trigger. That is poor training or lack of adherence to training. You do not have your finger on the trigger before the need--to much of a chance of an accidental discharge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DuckInAPen
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top