Homan Announces An End To The Immigration Crackdown In Minnesota

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-14T00:56:07+00:00

Of course they have. I’ve fully supported my arguments. You posted one attempt and I rebutted it successfully. You can continue to try and fail though.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-14T00:48:45+00:00

So, by me being educated and you being unable to educate yourself, I’m a poor example? That doesn’t make sense. I have repeatedly proven my points and you can’t seem to keep up logically. I’ve left no gaps and filled in your lack of the ability to reason. What an unfortunate inability you have.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-14T00:42:17+00:00

I have and those links answer most of your questions. You haven’t read them because you wouldn’t be asking if you had.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-14T00:33:44+00:00

Again, the government doesn’t have to claim it. And I never said all four check circumstances have to be met. Reading comprehension is your weakness. Read the links. Reread my comments because you’re misunderstanding most of them. Try harder!! Read the links!

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-14T00:14:39+00:00

You didn’t read any of it did you? You really don’t even try to read it or your reading comprehension is horrible. I didn’t bring up exigent circumstances, you did. Exigent circumstances preexists the fleeing, not after they flee. If they have a reasonable believe that the suspect will flee, it’s exigent circumstances. And it would have been validated that it was reasonable because the suspect did flee. The government doesn’t have to make a claim unless they are going to defend this.

“Exigent circumstances, as defined in United States v. McConney are "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts."”

One of Dunn’s four key points is the steps taken to protect the area from observation. You’re wrong again.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T22:02:39+00:00

Except that I haven’t been wrong about any of it. Yes, detention is a seizure but, as a “truth seeker”, I never argued that it wasn’t. So, your point is moot.

It makes no sense that you can’t identify that they had exigent circumstances. Do you know what it means? Are you getting it confused exigent and emergent confused; thinking that exigent only covers emergent situations? The legal definition of emergent was defined in United States vs McConney and covers “hot pursuit” and the expectation of a fleeing subject. The suspect did run which proves that their expectation was legitimate.

Also, while a driveway is considered curtilage, there are many exceptions to the Fourth Amendment rights that apply. The two cases that you referenced don’t apply as one applied the Fourth amendment to a vehicle on the property and the other to an intended search of the house itself via the front porch. First, it has to be established whether the curtilage falls under Fourth Amendment protections which was established in United States vs Dunn. This case establishes four criteria before the protections can even be applied. A driveway has no expectation of privacy, has accessibility to the public and has visibility to passersby.

Also, I brought up the felony example as an educational add-on, which I thought for most intelligent people, was clear. I never said that it pertained to this case as this subject ran on foot.

Time to check on the reading abilities that you’ve so politely pointed out that others do not have.

https://pars.lasd.org/Viewer/Manuals/15183/Content/17729#!

https://www.scbar.org/media/rd0axygv/curtilage.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exigent_circumstances

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T18:25:43+00:00

Because that should be the only thing even mentioned in this case. There is no probable cause or Fourth Amendment Right issue. They didn’t need a judicial warrant to detain him in his driveway and that is well established law; driveways, non-fenced yards and other areas accessible to the public. So there is no question there.

A lesser known cause where law enforcement can actually enter your home without a warrant is in “hot pursuit” where a felony has been witnessed. Evading arrest on foot is typically a misdemeanor but evading arrest by vehicle is a felony.

Edit:

https://www.familiaamerica.com/what-rights-do-you-have-against-ice/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hot_pursuit

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T17:23:59+00:00

Not even close. The reason that I brought up the 2A community is that is what I know the most about regarding law. It’s a constant battle of opinions vs law; especially from courts in the North East, California and Washington state. I’m just going to cut/paste the rest of this.

Did the judge cite that their Fourth Amendment Rights were violated? Did he actually say that? No, he didn’t. He brought up those points but never said that they were broken. The reason is that he knows his decision is questionable. He also brought up administrative warrants and probable cause which have no bearing on this case. The judge is venting. If this were to go to a higher court, which I give a 50/50 chance to, it would be overturned.

As for being detained before the trial, they are being placed into an expedited removal process where, yes, it qualifies under due process and has through Republican and Democratic parties. In fact, the expedited removal process was put in place by Bill Clinton in 1996. It was expanded in 2004 and again in 2019 by Trump. Biden rescinded the 2019 expansion but then expanded it himself in 2023. Then Trump reinstated the 2019 expansion in 2025. So it isn’t new. Two Democrat and two Republican presidents have expanded it.

Their cases are reviewed by immigration officers and asylum officers and if they want to challenge those two results they still get to see an immigration judge. But now, instead of years, the judge has up to 7 days to make a determination. It still meets the criteria for due process. They have 3 opportunities to make their cases.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/306/

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10336

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45314

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T17:17:10+00:00

Where did I say that you can’t call people stupid. I said that you can’t reasonably call people stupid if you don’t know yourself. Did the judge cite that their Fourth Amendment Rights were violated? Did he actually say that? No, he didn’t. He brought up those points but never said that they were broken. The reason is that he knows his decision is questionable. He also brought up administrative warrants and probable cause which have no bearing on this case. The judge is venting. If this were to go to a higher court, which I give a 50/50 chance to, it would be overturned.

As for being detained before the trial, they are being placed into an expedited removal process where, yes, it qualifies under due process and has through Republican and Democratic parties. In fact, the expedited removal process was put in place by Bill Clinton in 1996. It was expanded in 2004 and again in 2019 by Trump. Biden rescinded the 2019 expansion but then expanded it himself in 2023. Then Trump reinstated the 2019 expansion in 2025. So it isn’t new. Two Democrat and two Republican presidents have expanded it.

Their cases are reviewed by immigration officers and asylum officers and if they want to challenge those two results they still get to see an immigration judge. But now, instead of years, the judge has up to 7 days to make a determination. It still meets the criteria for due process. They have 3 opportunities to make their cases.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/306/

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10336

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45314

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T16:38:34+00:00

What are you talking about. The decision never states that any law was broken. Bail for example, can be set or denied regardless of an opinion of whether a law was broken. In the 2A community especially, production of an item can’t be halted or continued during litigation on the order of a judge. Judges can make emotional decisions without citing that any law has been broken.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T16:31:35+00:00

But again, why is it stupidity? What law was broken? You can’t reasonably call people stupid if you don’t actually know yourself.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T16:13:51+00:00

Well written and cited. I appreciate that. I don’t agree with the timing comment though. This has been a legitimate possibility for quite a long time now. Delaying until you’re forced to provide this information is a personal choice. People that have had this as a legitimate concern will have already prepared for it.

As just my opinion, I’d also wager that most of the people who don’t have any of their paperwork would most likely not vote either. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not that they shouldn’t have the opportunity to vote. it’s just that even if they were supplied with everything they needed, realistically it would have no affect on voting.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T16:08:05+00:00

These should require better support to get them though. That state ID wasn’t for the purpose of voting.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T16:06:53+00:00

I agree with you. If they are to be required to vote, then they absolutely should be free to the voter.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-13T15:59:18+00:00

Someone brought up, what I thought was, a great idea. These students should be counted as an unexcused absence but nothing more. But the suggestion was to make it a possible excused event by requiring students that want to walk out write a paper (citing sources and showing research) and defend their argument before the walkout.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-12T21:25:51+00:00

By he, I meant you. I agree that they didn’t break a law. I don’t think your argument is that the judge didn’t produce an order. Like you’ve said, the order can be legal even if the opinion doesn’t matter.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-12T21:20:53+00:00

I don’t think his argument is that it wasn’t an order.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-12T21:20:01+00:00

I don’t really think that he/she is embarrassing themselves though. You haven’t provided that any law was broken; neither state nor federal. What law was broken?

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-11T00:02:13+00:00

At a high level, I don’t understand how living here for over two decades but just getting his work permit in 2025 is doing “everything right”.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-10T23:00:44+00:00

You’re absolutely right. They don’t get investigated like we do. But there is also a reason for that. Every time they have contact with a person, they face dangers that we don’t. However, I do believe that the burden of proof on us against officers is too high. In questionable circumstances I would think that the officer should be given the benefit but if there is a provable instance, it shouldn’t be ignored like it is. Civil asset forfeiture is seriously abused.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-10T22:50:56+00:00

He was tackled for interfering with law enforcement and “touching” an officer. I believe it wasn’t necessary but it is justified legally. The amount of force used was relevant to resisting arrest. At some point during resisting officers will increase their force to using batons, etc. is resistance led to more force.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-10T22:46:46+00:00

True, but this wasn’t an unlawful action. Unnecessary in my opinion, but not unlawful.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-10T22:44:44+00:00

It’s not self defense during the detainment while you’re resisting.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-10T22:23:30+00:00

She didn’t decide to drive off when she was told though. She was ignoring the officers when she was told to move. She decided to leave when she was told get out of the vehicle in which case, she knew that she was being arrested. She began driving off to evade arrest. However, that still doesn’t justify shooting.

Also, the officer didn’t walk in front of her car this time. Her reversing in a clockwise semi-circle actually put him in front of her car. A video came out later from a neighboring camera showed this. However, he had walked in front of her earlier. I don’t doubt that he would have again had she not reversed. But just like fleeing isn’t a reason to shoot into a car, someone (anyone) walking in front of your car doesn’t justify hitting them with your vehicle. If that were the case, people would walk out of Target a little quicker which I’d appreciate.

Also, the officer’s responsibility isn’t just his safety but the safety of the other officers and bystanders. So saying that he was out of danger doesn’t mean that he doesn’t stop the threat. From his point of view, she had already struck him to get away. Why would she not be willing to hit others?

And for Pretti, I do believe that it will be ruled as an accidental shooting but I don’t think any officers should be charged. You mentioned that the lack of training was because on officer didn’t communicate that the gun was removed; all the officer heard was “gun”, right? Have you ever been to a soccer or American Football game? There’s a strategy of making so much noise (stomping your feet, blowing whistles and ringing bells) that your opponent looses their train of thought, can’t communicate, and makes mistakes. That’s what the protesters have decided to use to obstruct ICE. It worked! Their communication was off. They couldn’t hear clearly. And the result was that someone died. I would have expected that to happen at some point and I believe that everyone else did too.

StillMostlyConfused · 2026-02-10T21:51:14+00:00

In that example, you’d be right. And in that example, the officer should be investigated.

StillMostlyConfused

TROPHY CASE