18 U.S.C. § 111 (Assaulting/Impeding Officers): Prohibits forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with federal officers performing official duties.

▲

elnatro 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Does that law allow killing them by shooting? I suppose that officers need to detain them, read their rights, and put them in court. That’s what I thought was the core of the American Law.

▲

account42 9 hours ago | parent [-]

If the officers involved had could reasonably believe that they posed an immediate lethal threat at the time, yes it does. Whether or not that was the case is for courts to figure out after things calm down and all facts have been gathered and not a valid reason to call for the shut down of entire agencies with the intent of stopping enforcement of laws you don't like.

▲

nullocator 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Is the immediate lethal threat in the room with us right now? I hope no one ever accidentally believes you're an immediate lethal threat simply for existing, or at least if they do, maybe you'll be lucky enough to not have yuppies on the internet trying to defend your murder.

Can the officers in any of these incidents even articulate a threat, and how the only remedy was to shoot through the driver side window, or in the back of the head?

	▲	mindslight 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The presence of actual patriotic Americans who believe in individual liberty and limited government is an "imminent threat" to the agents' fantasy narrative where they're heroes doing good. Everything downstream of that is rationalization.

▲

donkeybeer 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Minnesota is a castle doctrine state. Minnesotans have the right to shoot at violent home invaders on their property.

▲

cassepipe 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

under penalty of death ?

▲

_DeadFred_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

How many convictions has ICE got under that statute? Seems like if it's really happening, they would have a ton. But wait, they keep losing their cases.

And citing that statute doesn't address ICE saying on the street they are adding people using biometrics to a database for targeted federal harassment (without any conviction violating the Constitution, if you are, you know, concerned about our nation's HIGHEST laws). Does address ICE using and normalizing secret police tactics of hiding their identities for routine, daily enforcement operations. Doesn't address claiming administrative warrants (able to be issued on the spot by ICE agents Judge Dred style) have the same power as actual Article III judge issued criminal warrants.