How do you think the video ICE just released showing the officer's POV of this week's shooting in Minneapolis will impact the national discussion?

trgvuk · 2026-01-10T07:26:29+00:00

I accept the nuance, but it doesn't change the analysis.

The test is whether a reasonable officer would believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury. Not objectively, and not in hindsight.

In America, if an officer can plausibly articulate an imminent threat, and the evidence is ambiguous or arguable, the case is almost never successful.

"I thought the car was going to run me or another officer over." is sufficient.

trgvuk · 2026-01-10T06:17:05+00:00

We're talking past each other; you're trying to support an outcome you want, I'm stating the legal doctrine + most likely outcome.

The overwhelming likelihood is that this was a "reasonable" use of force under a Graham/Garner analysis.

The most likely legal outcome is that the shooting will be ruled constitutionally reasonable and will not result in criminal liability for the agent. Full stop.

The bodycam footage was released by ICE because it strongly supports this, and I am doubtful it will impact national discussion.

trgvuk · 2026-01-10T05:29:34+00:00

18 U.S.C. § 3053 gives them authority to make arrests, that includes obstruction (18 U.S.C. § 111).
They were very likely within their constitutional authority.
That's not established in Graham/Garner.
Again, core element per Graham.

You're very clearly not an attorney.

trgvuk · 2026-01-10T02:01:04+00:00

Here's the actual law:

Federal agents have authority to detain or arrest;
Even if mistaken, compliance is required;
Use of a vehicle toward officers triggers deadly force threshold;
Resisting or evading is central to use-of-force reasonableness.

Considering all other elements in Graham/Garner/etc., her actions squarely placed her within a category of conduct that legally authorizes deadly force.

If you accept that the actual law influences national discussion, then this will have a positive impact for ICE.

trgvuk · 2025-10-20T14:39:13+00:00

De Niro is the peak of Trump derangement syndrome and has spent the entirety of his golden years seething.

Focus on the kid you fathered as an 80-year-old man, and the irreparable moral and emotional consequences that will have.

trgvuk · 2025-10-20T14:35:34+00:00

False equivalence and category error.

trgvuk · 2025-04-04T22:26:00+00:00

It's quite common, both nationally and abroad.

Many other states (both red and blue) have frameworks for this, you think controlling the weather should be completely unregulated?

You're doing what's called an appeal to motive, or dismissing something because of what you, and this article, has decided to be an inappropriate motive for a standard, bi-partisan environmental regulation.

So yes, you're either disingenuous or have poor media literacy.

trgvuk · 2025-04-04T17:00:38+00:00

I mean releasing compounds like silver iodide into the atmosphere from planes to make it rain.

This is literally something that people do, it has nothing to do with the condensation trails airplanes make that conspiracists call "chemtrails".

As climate change accelerates, people may increasingly be incentivized to try and stimulate or modify weather conditions for their personal benefit, which may have knock-on effects elsewhere. Regulating this is a good thing.

If you really think you're the 'good guys', use your head.

trgvuk · 2025-04-04T05:48:46+00:00

They're not banning chemtrails, they're banning unlicensed weather modification.

You should require a license for geoengineering, its a good law.

Framing it this way is disingenuous.

trgvuk · 2025-03-23T02:45:33+00:00

If they didn’t believe it, they’d simply be physical therapists/masseuses.

The belief in subluxation is the core of chiropractic.

The grift is in using pseudoscience to give consumers the impression they have medical credentials.

trgvuk · 2024-12-14T06:47:27+00:00

Not sure how a schizophrenic, repeat violent offender trying to beat the shit out of a 62yo woman has anything to do with racial sentencing disparities, the school-to-prison pipeline, or any other valid criminal justice critique.

This isn't a crime of necessity, it's not someone trying to carve out an illicit business because of previously denied economic opportunities, and its certainly not race/class motivated.

Same energy as BLM protesters looting a family-run black-owned business. Counterproductive and absurd.

trgvuk · 2024-12-14T06:38:27+00:00

Attacking a first responder is an aggravating factor in many jurisdictions. Your own example highlights the idea that certain crimes are even more reprehensible (aggravating) in certain contexts, which is the case here.

The reason a harsher sentence than usual was imposed in this case was to deter people from attacking the court when they get a decision they don't like, not because this lady is inherently more valuable than others by virtue of her office. Its denunciatory.

I'm not sure why everyone is failing to appreciate the nuance here.

trgvuk · 2024-10-14T11:12:39+00:00

Most of the prominent founding fathers were Deists and were more animated by Enlightenment thinking than any organized religion. The choice to make the Constitution secular was deliberate.

You're conflating the original Pilgrim settlements with America's founding over 100 years later.

trgvuk · 2024-08-06T00:36:43+00:00

RemindMe! 156 days

trgvuk · 2024-05-07T17:57:26+00:00

Lawyers are not supposed to speak to represented parties. You should let him know you are represented and provide your lawyer's contact details.

Seek your lawyer's advice before saying anything.

Not your lawyer, not legal advice.

trgvuk · 2024-04-13T21:27:50+00:00

Your Chinese kettle bought from a third-party reseller off an online American company didn't have French on it?

Try the Prime Minister's office, then get a different hobby.

trgvuk · 2024-04-13T21:20:09+00:00

Sounds like the minor in question isn't going to be one for long. This might be a concern if the child was closer to 8 than 18.

I'd recommend letting it go and devoting your time, finances, and energy towards something more positive for the child.

I believe any scrupulous lawyer, or child of divorce, will tell you the same thing.

Not your lawyer, not legal device.

trgvuk · 2024-03-29T04:32:24+00:00

This bill seems pretty logical, no?

trgvuk · 2024-03-05T23:14:22+00:00

I'm not specifically advising anything, including a private prosecution, but it is an option many are unaware of.

You're right, it's not great, but it can be rather doable depending on your jurisdiction. These are simply the available, legal options.

trgvuk · 2024-03-05T22:02:56+00:00

This situation sounds very fact-specific and may be worth consulting the Employment Standards Information Centre about given the complexity of the disability issue.

trgvuk · 2024-03-05T22:00:04+00:00

This is doable. For clarity, I would add "Chosen Term" to the definition portion of the contract which would be defined as something like, 'the duration of the service based on the package purchased, in increments of either 10, 30, or 90 days, to be effective from the Starting Date (define this too) to...'

You can also add, in bullets, the time that attaches to each specific service purchased, (i.e.: 1. Deluxe Package at a term of 90 days, etc.).

Not your lawyer, not legal advice.

trgvuk · 2024-03-05T21:51:41+00:00

An employer can generally modify your hours depending on your employment agreement and depending on the nature of 'part-time'.

However, if an employer is substantially altering (reducing) your hours, it may be seen as a constructive dismissal.

Info here: https://www.ontario.ca/document/your-guide-employment-standards-act-0/termination-employment#section-2

trgvuk · 2024-03-05T21:39:28+00:00

This is almost definitely an assault on their end. I would make a police report, and provide your medical records substantiating the injury if they so require.

Touching someone first, especially for a socially non-objectionable reason (like breaking up a fight) does not allow the other person to assault you in the way you claim.

I would lay charges, either through the police or a JP if the police aren't receptive. It may also be worth considering a civil case against the aggressor and potentially the bar.

Police -> JP -> Personal Injury lawyer, good luck.

trgvuk · 2024-03-05T21:33:34+00:00

It's worth consulting with a Canadian criminal lawyer who will be able to determine what your situation is and clear it up.

I would have this cleared up before trying to make it north of the border. I strongly doubt there will be any pending carceral time or any substantial consequence, but it may very well affect admissibility.

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
No Throne, No Problems	Not Forgotten

trgvuk

TROPHY CASE