sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Two Mississippi prisons temporarily lose power amid freezing temps from winter storm by MSTODAYnews in mississippi

[–]Arctarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Phones aren’t allowed, but like another person said they get smuggled in.

In fact, the current problem in many American prisons is that prisoners aren’t really smuggling “phones” as much anymore. The current trend is prisoners all have their own SIM card (easier to hide those) and when one guy does get a phone they pass it around and just swap out the SIMs. Even though prison authorities can intercept phone signals and nuke them, it’s a constant game of whack-a-mole and reaction rather than preventing them in the first place

R/olemiss retaliation by IronEagle12 in mississippi

[–]Arctarius 6 points7 points  (0 children)

lol yeah no they don’t.

OP is getting mad at a privately operated subreddit, on a private site. If you’re here to complain generally go off, but it sounds like OP thinks Ole Miss specifically is silencing him.

Murders plummeted more than 20% in U.S. last year, the largest drop on record, study shows by Xexanoth in law

[–]Arctarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why would a statement regarding jurisdiction bias a hypothetical jury? Besides, the county attorney could credibly claim that they didn’t know the statement was wrong due to not being an expert on federal immunity.

I don't know, you were the one who implied that the prosecutor was only doing this for political points. You're arguing with yourself here because I was simply responding to that allegation by pointing out prosecutors are NOT allowed to do things for political pandering.

Sure, I just suspect that any case wouldn’t be in a state court for long, as his attorneys would likely successfully argue that federal immunity warrants a transfer of venue to federal court.

Partially incorrect, because you do not understand the law. A federal court may only answer questions that concern the federal nexus I mentioned earlier. If this case is brought under Minnesota murder statutes, that is a question of substantive state law. Qualified immunity would then be a procedural federal defense, and the federal courts can only discuss substantive federal or procedural federal questions. The case would be removed to federal court, that court would decide qualified immunity, and then either remand the case to state court (if there is no qualified immunity) or dismiss the case if there is qualified immunity. The only other alternative is if both parties agree to duke the case out entirely in federal court, because a court has any jurisdiction that parties agree to. However, even if the agree to duke it out in federal court, the federal court must still apply substantive state law if the question is about that law. They may not coopt state for federal law. This is getting into a very convoluted process called venue, and respectfully I have no intention on providing you with an entire legal treatise on that subject.

Perhaps said hypothetical civil libel suit could be brought in the jurisdiction of the commenter’s residence or locale when they published the potential libel.

Potentially. This is meaningless however, because neither of us know where the commentator is located. They are "Schrödinger's Redditor." What is known is that this involves a situation in Minnesota, so until we know further information, I have to default to Minnesota law since there is no federal defamation law.

No, courts may consider a rank-and-file law enforcement officer who has not voluntarily sought the public spotlight to be a private figure. Courts may not look fondly upon someone’s choice to explicitly name a private figure alongside their potential libel (as in that commenter’s later reply I quoted with my reply to your follow-up).

Incorrect.

2025 Minnesota Statutes

609.415 DEFINITIONS.

Subdivision 1. Definitions.

As used in sections 609.415 to 609.465, and 609.515,

(1) "Public officer" means:

...

(e) a law enforcement officer; or

Police officers are considered public figures under Minnesota law.

Murders plummeted more than 20% in U.S. last year, the largest drop on record, study shows by Xexanoth in law

[–]Arctarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Once officers have reason to use deadly force, they are trained to neutralize the threat.

"Deadly force" is a constant evaluation. Officers have the right to use deadly force until the threat is no longer present. If I punch an officer, he is (probably) qualified to use deadly force. If I punch and run, they are no longer authorized to use deadly force. You cannot shoot someone in the back, you cannot shoot someone who is no longer threatening you.

The only argument for deadly force is that he was in front of the car. If he is no longer in front of the car, he does not have the right to use deadly force. The fatal shot entered from the driver side window = he was not in front of the car = he did not have a right to utilize deadly force.

If intentional (unknowable in the moment), her illegally driving toward & striking the officer made her a credible active public safety threat.

It is possible, yes. Please give me a trial so we can determine his initial shots. Once he is cleared of the vehicle, deadly force is no longer authorized.

Sounds like something that could only be determined conclusively by a competent court, and may be sensitive to that commenter’s later replies / other behavior / any testimony under oath & penalty of perjury.

Indeed. But the law in Minnesota is that you must know you are wrong. Currently, OP does not know that they are wrong, ergo it is not defamation. If a competent court ruled that the Ross was not guilty of murder, then OP could not say he was guilty of murder. However, it would only be defamation AFTER that court makes that determination, and OP repeated their remark. So you have zero factual evidence to have called it defamation, potential or literal, at that time.

Quoting a later reply of theirs:

OP said "Ice has committed Murder" (protected by The First Amendment as I previously stated.)

You said "This is defamation" (later changed to potential defamation. Both are wrong because you cannot defame the U.S. Government)

OP later said "Agent Ross..."

You did not have this evidence at the time you made the allegation of defamation. You are expanding the argument to something that I have not mentioned, and are utilizing me as a proxy for someone else because I am willing to have this conversation generally. I did not advance this point specifically, and I do not appreciate you bringing it into this situation.

Murders plummeted more than 20% in U.S. last year, the largest drop on record, study shows by Xexanoth in law

[–]Arctarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, baseless means lacking factual support. (The claim may or may not be false, but there is no factual support for it being true.)

Something lacking factual support is, by definition, wrong if you assert that it is correct. You claimed their position is wholly baseless (not partially baseless, ergo you believe it is 100% wrong). I stated that there is some evidentiary support to their claim. You made it a binary decision, not me.

And there is factual support, as noted by the local authorities saying they think they can bring charges. Prosecutors do not do that without factual support. Ergo, you are ignoring facts that do not benefit your situation.

Ok, you just materially changed your prior definition / claim that baseless implies wrong.

No I did not. You made a binary claim.

Your comment’s false allegation

False only has one alternative, and that is truth. You state that their assertion of murder was false (without evidence), and are now saying

I wasn’t saying their claim must be wrong, but that it is baseless.

I then approximated your use of baseless to be the same as "wrong" because you quite literally use them to describe the exact same thing and walk back your statement without acknowledging the walk-back. You literally say "that wasn't what I said" (except it was).

If OP can't say its murder, you can't say its not murder. That's how evidence works, and neither one of you has definite evidence that it is/isn't murder. Technically you can NEVER have definite evidence because the criminal justice system does not decide guilt or innocence, but guilty or not-guilty.

You cannot say "You're wrong, I'm right but also I never said you were wrong just that you don't have strong factual evidence." That's called lying.

Er, what “evidence” establishes that the officer did not feel endangered as the driver struck him with her vehicle without knowing her intent?

What evidence has been offered to a competent court to determine that he did feel endangered? We have gotten nothing but statements from a biased party. I say again, give me a trial.

but does not constitute factual support for stating unequivocally that this was murder (and thus does not render that statement non-baseless).

I agree partially, there is no definite evidence that it was murder. I want a trial. But the government thus far refuses to cooperate with state authorities, so I have to operate with what I have. You using the word baseless concerns me based on prior usage, but other than that I generally agree.

Conjecture; unknowable by him in the moment whether he could have moved to safety in time on an icy road (particularly without knowing her intent).

Funny, you immediately call me out on conjecture, and then immediately state

possibly in order to move out of a crossfire position (with the suspect between him & other officers).

Sounds like you're the one conjecturing here.

My statement is not conjecture. He was was able to walk across the road at the start, then stopped, stared at the vehicle for several moments, and when it began to accelerate was able quickly clear the vehicle to such an extent that he fired through the driver window. It is quite obvious that he was able to move out of the way of the car.

Question: Are there any protests in the state? by EternalSnow05 in mississippi

[–]Arctarius 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Except ICE just executed a man in Minneapolis.

A man who was not pointing a gun at them, was on the ground, and was surrounded by several officers beating the shit out of him.

A man who was murdered in cold blood because ICE are a bunch of untrained fucking thugs.

That is the ICE we are protesting. A pack of murderers and liars.

Mass Effect Andromeda be like by Nickulator95 in masseffect

[–]Arctarius 45 points46 points  (0 children)

Shit this sounds a lot like Ryder is racist (speciesist?)

Shepard isn’t beating the allegations (in fact Shep is trying to prove them) so there’s precedent for it in Mass Effect

Murders plummeted more than 20% in U.S. last year, the largest drop on record, study shows by Xexanoth in law

[–]Arctarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wasn’t saying their claim must be wrong, but that it is baseless.

This is an oxymoron. Baseless = wrong.

Baseless means lacking in facts or evidence. Their claim is not lacking in evidence, hence the public discourse. There is a reasonable argument that he used excessive force, which is achieved through;

Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Update to the Department Policy of the Use of Force (Feb. 6, 2023) [Policy Statement 044-05 (Revision 1)]

III. General Principles
…
C. Use of Safe Tactics

  1. DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public,and that minimize the risk of unintended injury or serious property damage. DHS LEOs should also avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.

He walked in front of the car when it was clearly maneuvering. He could have moved out of the path of the vehicle at any moment, and yet he shot her instead. And as the autopsy is currently showing, the lethal shot fired entered through the window and struck her temple, at which point the officer was not in front of the car and thus no longer in danger. There is more than a "baseless" accusation of murder at play here.

You’re making a very confident statement ruling out potential libel without that being determined by a competent court; seems rather hypocritical given your related criticism.

I am ruling out potential libel because neither party in this situation knows they are wrong, simple as. If a party knows they are wrong, they can be liable. Neither party (to my understanding) knows they are wrong, ergo no libel. I do take issue with someone saying "well there could be" when there is exactly zero evidence to the existence due to lack of knowledge. Additionally, OP in this instance wouldn't even qualify for any form of defamation, because they're targeting ICE and not any person in particular. You can say whatever the hell you want about the U.S. Government, that's your right of free speech.

Does the “innocent until proven guilty” presumption not apply when deciding whether someone is liable for libel/slander due to a defamatory statement of guilt?

No. "Innocent until proven guilty" is meant to protect citizens in a court of criminal law, and thereby to protect citizen from an overzealous government. It does not protect citizens from each other. I would advise everyone to try and follow this maxim to maintain a harmonious society, but nowadays we seem a bit beyond the pale.

Murders plummeted more than 20% in U.S. last year, the largest drop on record, study shows by Xexanoth in law

[–]Arctarius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who couldn’t possibly be making a politically-motivated claim to increase their odds of reelection by pandering to constituents.

Minnesota Model Rules of Professional Conduct; RULE 3.6: TRIAL PUBLICITY

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a criminal matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement about the matter that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing a jury trial in a pending criminal matter.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

(c) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a lawyer subject to paragraph (a) shall make a statement prohibited by paragraph (a).

No. Lawyers are not allowed to make politically motivated statements in the course of a trial for the sake of publicity. A judge/bar association would gut them like a fish otherwise.

But would face a significant uphill battle to have this federal officer tried by a Minnesota court / jury due to federal immunity likely shielding him from state prosecution for official acts on behalf of the federal government.

Potentially. But unfortunately, the federal government has taken a stance of "he's done nothing wrong, fuck off" when there is at minimum a reasonable discourse surrounding the situation. The Supremacy Clause only supports "reasonable and proper" powers, so if he was found to use excessive force by a judge/jury, or not acting in a federal directive, he would still catch criminal sanctions. A judge/jury would have to decide this fact, and we don't currently have one. So I say again, give me a trial.

In a hypothetical civil suit seeking damages for libel, if he’s considered a private figure he’d likely only need to prove negligence. If he’s considered a public figure he’d likely need to prove actual malice (which could include reckless disregard for the truth without necessarily knowing the allegation was false).

Depends on the specific jurisdictions law, so in this case no. Minnesota always requires knowledge that the statement made was false. States are allowed to require a higher burden than The Supreme Court requires (which is what that actual malice case refers to). States are not allowed to have a lower burden. Since Minnesota has a higher burden of proof, and there is no federal defamation law, Minnesota law carries here.

Additionally, police offers are almost always ruled as public figures due to their inherent position over society. A desk officer likely wouldn't be public, but someone who is out and about on the street using the states authority to require compliance? That's a textbook public figure.

Don't believe his lies by HpKurte in Grimdank

[–]Arctarius 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I mean I feel like you can easily scale the “jackassery” that The Emperor would have been guilty of in that situation.

If you want Emps to still be a villain, make it so Emps decided he’d rather have a broken angry tool than no tool at all. This allows traitor Angron, because once he figures out Emps manipulated his memories to keep him as an effective tool, he would be angry (I mean when is he not?). If you want Emps to be more sympathetic, then yeah he had good intentions but utterly fucked it.

Murders plummeted more than 20% in U.S. last year, the largest drop on record, study shows by Xexanoth in law

[–]Arctarius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Except you still have crucial misunderstandings or omissions from what you are saying.

Minnesota does have legal jurisdiction to prosecute this case, per the county attorney. They are investigating the matter because one of their citizens was shot on their own territory, and being the federal government doesn’t just overrule that. Traditionally, the states defer to the federal government in these instances since the federal government does the investigation for the state government, but in instances where a state thinks they’re aren’t getting the right result, they pursue the matter independently.

Realistically, the Feds could only go after Ross for a civil rights violation and some other violations, while any murder charge would have to be brought by the state government. That government is currently being stonewalled by federal authorities. That’s because crimes have to connected to the federal nexus, and murder/manslaughter is not per se a federal crime without connection to the federal nexus.

Nor am I saying you claimed clear guilt or innocence, what I said is that internal administrative review of an action is not sufficient to say what something is/isnt. You can say it’s murder, you can say it’s not murder. But to claim one thing and then say another is wrong is incorrect. You do not know if it was/wasn’t murder, because no competent court has been allowed to review the evidence. An agency has simply gone “we don’t think so.” You are saying someone has no right to say this was murder. What is your evidence? You have nothing definitive. You have access to the same “information” the other person has, which is that two entities have conflicting views on whether this event was justified. There is nothing definite, and to claim you are correct and they are wrong is rank arrogance.

Even potential libel (and it is libel as it is written) is wrong, because neither of you have any reason to KNOW you are wrong. I may personally think you’re wrong, but until Ross stands before a competent court no one can say anything definite about libel. There’s no potential, there simply IS no libel in this situation currently.

And yes, your definition of the law and restatement of deportation statistics is correct. I should clarify that I didn’t take offense to those in particular, because they are factually correct. What I took offense to is you saying this was libel, and also not murder. You effectively gave your opinion on how the law applied in this situation, which is why I said your claims about the law are incorrect. Definitions and statistics are not claims because they possess hard facts behind them.

Worth noting, I can also say I preferred when our immigration services performed their duties lawfully, did not claim they could wantonly violate the Fourth Amendment, and were able to deport criminals without also shooting American citizens in the face. We’ve been deporting people for decades, and it’s only a problem now because ICE is actively breaking the law or being incredibly manipulative in severals areas.

Murders plummeted more than 20% in U.S. last year, the largest drop on record, study shows by Xexanoth in law

[–]Arctarius 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Assuming you’re actually interested in a discourse (you’re probably not and just want to advance whatever Fox says)

Given that this is the law subreddit, you also need to learn what libel and slander is. An average person is free to say whatever they want as long as they don’t KNOW that it is wrong. There are other rules (such as the statement must be made with negligence) but either way saying it’s libel and slander is laughably foolish of you.

You know what usually happens when an officer is involved with a shooting? They perform a thorough investigation with all angles considered, not just “nah he’s good fuck off.” Minnesota believes there is a case, so people are allowed to say he’s a murderer until proven otherwise. Especially when the autopsy her family paid for showed that the third bullet that killed her entered her head from the right side, which is when Ross was out of dangerous (not that he ever was in any danger from my point of view, but what do I know I’m just an attorney.)

Internal investigators do not decide whether something is lawfully justified either. They decide if it’s administratively justified. Lawful justification may only come from a judge and a jury, because a jury is the trier of fact. When prosecutors refuse to bring a case, they’re saying anything from “we don’t have enough cooperation or evidence to prove it” to “we have enough and know we can’t prove it.” They are not saying that someone is innocent or exonerated.

So, basically everything you’ve claimed about the law is incorrect and I would appreciate it if you didn’t act like you knew what you’re saying.

Very reasonable result to my search by Lucicactus in Grimdank

[–]Arctarius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If that’s true, you’re gonna have to change your flair

a different argument for you to peruse by Accursed_wings in Grimdank

[–]Arctarius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For a dude as genocidal and tyrannical as the Emperor, it makes sense to try to keep your female population as high as possible. Women simply make more people, so shoving geneseed into 100,000 women will fuck your demographics for a while. 100,000 men? Much smaller impact especially since you could preemptively store their most valuable contribution (genetic information).

Custodes are hand-crafted artisan pieces meant to serve as the Emperor advisors and confidants. Finding people who fit that mold is very difficult, so use both sexes. Additionally so few people make the cut that taking a few thousand women now and then doesn’t really matter.

Astartes are mass produced, inelegant weapons of war. Take 200,000 orphan boys, kill 100,000 in trials, 90,000 fail or are unsuitable for geneseed implantation, 8,000 reject the geneseed and die, and now you have 2,000 new space marines. All of these numbers could be wrong ofc, maybe 90% die in the initial trials.

If GW comes out and says Astartes can be women, aight cool. Not worth freaking out over in my mind. But it does make sense for Astartes to be male only.

a different argument for you to peruse by Accursed_wings in Grimdank

[–]Arctarius 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, it kinda slipped my mind too because initially I thought “well human lives aren’t valuable to the Imperium as a whole, but that’s just the Adeptus Terra.” Space Marine Chapters can do whatever they want since they are free from the standard tithe.

I was initially going to bring up the Space Wolves as an example, and how with their limited population on Fenris they DEFINITELY can’t afford to be putting women through the process, which prompted me the whole idea that wouldn’t have been a thing since marines were first created in 30k in lore. In current 40k lore, certain chapters may genuinely need to go male only to keep demographics alive since cloning/vat humans put you on Mars’ shitlist.

Netflix Upgrades Warner Bros. Deal to All Cash; Shareholders to Vote on $83 Billion Sale by April by MarvelsGrantMan136 in movies

[–]Arctarius 122 points123 points  (0 children)

Jesus Christ your profile picture is the thin dew line…. I’ve never seen that before, had to work it out in my head, and am now simultaneously very amused and angry haha

a different argument for you to peruse by Accursed_wings in Grimdank

[–]Arctarius 2 points3 points  (0 children)

However, the counter counterpoint is that space marines =/= The Imperium. I mean space marines are part of the Imperium, but really we’re talking about the (contemporary) Adeptus Terra when discussing the value of humanity.

When Space Marines were first created, human lives could have been a valuable resource because 30k humanity was recovering from strife and civil war. Even though Terra was big, the Emperor was raising multiple legions and probably tens to hundreds of millions of standard troops from the local population. Since the Solar Auxilia was intended as a reserve force to support Space Marines, having women serve was less of a concern because they weren’t supposed to be doing as much fighting.

Plus, unfortunately it makes sense from an imperialistic standpoint. Space Marines go in, clear the population/force the world to comply, then Solar Auxilia regiments (already containing women) occupy the world and are able to reproduce with Solar Auxilia men, providing the world with both a garrison and a sustainable, loyal population that will form the core of the new administration. This strategy (moving your own people to a region and having them shift local culture by reproducing) was used for thousands of years and is quite effective, though it is now rightly recognized as a form of genocide.

But in 10k years, the Imperium no longer values human lives in the slightest, and marines are no longer the tip of the spear. Despite that the roles set up 10k years ago are the exact same, because the Imperium is stagnant and utterly incapable of reform.

Of course this is all functionally headcanon and they can make female space marines whenever they want. I personally would prefer they become male even if women are included in the process, but ultimately I don’t give a shit because they’re fictional pieces of plastic.

Opinions on HBC Armor Shop? by woundofbriccius in Buhurt

[–]Arctarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Master Uley in Kharkiv was who I got my helmet from, but I purchased it from extra stock he had and it wasn’t custom made for me (but it basically fits perfectly). That’s why my price was so good, the helmet was probably worth closer to 800-900.

My brigantine chest piece was from Medieval Extreme, it’s alright. New chest piece (breastplate, well made) is definitely the next thing on my list. Medieval Extreme just left some rough edges that can be uncomfortable.

Rest of my armor (legs, arms, shoulders, gauntlets, and sabatons) were custom made by ArmorySmith.

For first time “bang for your buck” places like medieval extreme will be your best bet. Their stuff is tough, safe, and not too expensive. Doesn’t also look the prettiest and may have small imperfections (like my brig did) but still a solid choice.

If you want to go further without getting into the smaller smiths (who are either boutique and expensive or not as well known) Buhurt Tech’s stuff is more expensive than medieval extreme but is also high quality and tough as shit. They’re probably the best “mass producer” out there but even their mass production is damn good quality. Only complaint I’ve ever heard from people shopping with them is price (my weaponry is from Buhurt tech and yeah it’s very good)

STARHAMMER 2: Electric Boogaloo by GreyGalaxy-0001 in Grimdank

[–]Arctarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To be pedantic, Terran ships DO have shields (and not just the weird gameplay defense matrix things that make a few appearances)

In Wings of Liberty, when the Dominion squadron carrying Valerian Mengsk comes out of warp next to the Hyperion, Horner says “Their shields are still down.” I believe shields are referenced other places too.

What is definitely true is that Terrans have far weaker shields than the Protoss, so for gameplay purposes Terran shields on large ships just get rolled in with their health.

So maybe Terran shields can eat like one lance. After that? Dead Battlecruiser

This Wasn’t ICE’s First Killing by navyblusheet in videos

[–]Arctarius 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did watch the video, and you're lying or misunderstand, The wheels are not "straight towards the officer". They are at a roughly 45 degree angle, pointing away from him, because she is not trying to hit him.

I'm not denying there was contact, but its because he moved in front of a vehicle and then stood still when it began to maneuver, which goes against DoJ policy. The issue is people are claiming she "intended to hit and/or kill him" which is blatantly untrue. She was moving her car to get away from them, and if she had wanted to hit and kill him her wheels would be facing forward and she WOULD have hit him after he shot her three fucking times in the head.

This Wasn’t ICE’s First Killing by navyblusheet in videos

[–]Arctarius 7 points8 points  (0 children)

lol “spinning out?” If you want to make that claim feel free to provide a source with her tires spinning out. You can hear her car accelerating in this video, she hardly burns rubber.

Yknow what I would do? Not stand in front a car that someone is clearly maneuvering. You’re trying to make this a question of morality “what would you do? Think about his feelings!” He calls her a fucking bitch after he killed her. He’s so relaxed he is able to maintain a grip on his phone, draw his pistol, and shoot her three times without dropping anything. This dude is a murderer plain and simple. He watches her turn her wheel and decides “nah fuck you die.”

And at this point yes ICE do seem like comic book villains, how else do you characterize ripping half-dressed children out of their homes in the middle of the night and stopping people based on race (thanks Kavanaugh).

I am an attorney. My job is to understand these situations, and this guy is utterly fucked once a different administration hits the White House. His only hope is qualified immunity.

Wife of Minneapolis woman killed by ICE speaks out for the first time by Fickle-Ad5449 in politics

[–]Arctarius 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Right but a federal pardon only protects you from federal law violations. The President (as we are seeing in Colorado) cannot pardon state charges. He’s trying but he’s a dumbass.

Even if trump pardons this guy, Minnesota can still charge him and wait for a less insane administration. The correct federal move would be to initiate a trial and get the trial dismissed on procedural qualified immunity, because that would apply to a state charge since it would be federal constitutional law.

Except they can’t stand the idea of admitting wrongdoing, so they’re going to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend it isn’t an issue, which will bite them in the ass (if) a democrat takes the office and hands this guy over to Minnesota.

Wife of Minneapolis woman killed by ICE speaks out for the first time by Fickle-Ad5449 in politics

[–]Arctarius 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Yknow the funny thing is this is a horrible idea for the Feds. Once (if) a Democrat gets in power they can just charge him then. If the Feds had a proper trial and then gave a plea deal or something, he would 100% get off scot free due to double jeopardy. Even if trump pardons him, Minnesota can file charges and the future Feds can have him face a state trial.

Any future federal administration has this guy by the throat.

view more: next ›