politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm sure I read some suggestion of charging her with felony murder; as in she committed a felony (anyone's guess what that would even be) and as a result her wife got shot, which somehow makes it her fault.
Almost certainly the felony murder rule. This is a first-year law school concept that they are twisting and perverting - par for the course for this administration - but it basically means that a group committing a felony are all liable for any murders that happen during the course of that felony.
The idea of using it on an innocent murder victim's wife to feed into an already ludicrous narrative that the victim was the perpetrator is outright evil. It's not surprising that these people resigned, because if you have morals, you will feel your skin crawl at the very idea of doing that.
An utterly moronic law in the first place. I remember reading a case where a cop responding to a bank robbery negligently discharged his firarm, killing a colleague, and the robbers got charged with that murder instead of the cop.
Imagine being able to kill a coworker you don't like and someone else goes to jail for it. I'm not saying the cop who pulled the trigger did it on purpose, but this is literally precedent if you wanted to.
It is asinine, but the person convicted of felony murder doesn't take the place of the actual murderer, it is in addition to. The felony murder has no impact whatsoever on a person more directly responsible for the death.
Wait so by that logic every motherfucker with Ross should be charged with murder
Since ICE was there in the first place and shouldn’t have been, shouldn’t we charge them with the murder?
I mean if we’re playing cutesy baby games with the rules, those motherfuckers shouldn’t be operating armed terror squads on US soil and they have no jurisdiction over US citizens, so any assault they make on a US citizen is 100% a felony so I think we should charge Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi right away
Oh, I think that's what all reasonable people agree on. ICE, and at least Jonathan Ross, the murderer, should be charged. But qualified immunity is the reason why this guy and ICE more generally hasn't already been charged.
Edit: I misspoke, see TipRing's explanation below.
Qualified Immunity is a protection against civil suits. Committing crimes never falls under its protections. The current issue is that the Federal Government can use the Supremacy Clause to pull any criminal proceeding into Federal Court by making the argument that Ross was executing his duties as a federal agent, if successful the co-opted DoJ can just spike the case or Trump can pardon the crime.
The state has to prove to the court that apprehending a US Citizen is not within ICE's jurisdiction so the Supremacy Clause should not apply, this is a largely untested situation so we can probably guess how our current Supreme Court will rule on this.
I stand corrected, thank you.
As I understand it, by law there should be an investigation into any time an ICE officer fires a gun.
Naturally, the Trump DOJ has refused to even investigate any instance.
I guess they should have used that one on tramp's many crimes...but instead they need RICO?
It's always different for them. For some reason. Somehow.
It's Wilhoit's Law:
That doesn't mean they're not accountable for their actions.
Im preaching to the choir, I know.
Technically it does, since the law not binding them would mean total impunity but yeah, we're agreed that it SHOULD bind them 🤷
Morals aside, I'm not sure on a practical level what felony they would be able to even try and argue the wife was committing here.
Who is that?
A reporter that asked trump some easy, direct questions during his first term and got substained crazy back. His expressions have been memed.
HBO reporter that interviewed Trump a few years back
Be warned, it's extremely painful to watch: https://youtu.be/NmrEfQG6pIg
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/donald-trumps-2020-axios-on-hbo-interview
https://youtu.be/NmrEfQG6pIg