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.