Americans for Common Sense

Stolen from a friend! From a fellow veteran that happens to be an attorney:

There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I'd like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense At best, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty.

The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were:

Authorized under federal law; and

"Necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties.

If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case "removed" to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent's actions met the "necessary and proper" standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact.

Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993)

Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts:
Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life.

Holding (paraphrased):

“An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.”

Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007) Ninth Circuit

Facts:
Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired.

Holding:

An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force.

Key language:
The court emphasized that reasonableness includes the officer’s own tactical decisions leading up to the shooting.

Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2001)

Eighth Circuit

Key point:
The court rejected summary judgment for officers where evidence showed the officer moved into the vehicle’s path, creating the perceived threat.

Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999)

Third Circuit

Facts:
Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver.

Holding:
The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation.

Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008)

Holding:
Deadly force may be unconstitutional where:

• The officer fired into a moving vehicle

• The officer could have stepped aside

• The threat was self-created

The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire.

Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007)

Holding:

An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle.

The Ninth Circuit emphasized tactical disengagement as the constitutional expectation.

TRAINING & POLICY ALIGNMENT (COURTS CARE ABOUT THIS)

Many courts note that modern police training instructs:

• Do not fire into moving vehicles

• Do not use deadly force to stop a fleeing car

• Disengage and contain instead

Courts treat violations of training as evidence of unreasonableness, even if not dispositive.

The Supreme Court rejected a longshot effort Monday to overturn its ruling guaranteeing same-sex marriage nationwide.

Supreme Court rejects long-shot effort to overturn same-sex marriage ruling — NBC News The court turned away an appeal filed by Kim Davis, a former county clerk in Kentucky who was sued after refusing to issue a marriage license to a gay couple.

Oh don’t worry guys, our top intelligence official is just casually boosting Russian state media, but it’s fine because it’s her personal account. Totally normal.

Rest of conversation -

HIMES: Do you think it’s responsible for you, as head of the intelligence community, to retweet posts from individuals affiliated with Russian state media?

GABBARD: That retweet came from my personal account.

HIMES: Personal account? You’re the Director of National Intelligence, not an Instagram influencer. There’s no such thing as “personal” when you’re elevating Kremlin propaganda.

GABBARD: I have the right to share information—

HIMES: Information? You mean Russian disinformation. You sit in high-level intelligence briefings, then turn around and boost the same narratives Moscow is pushing. Should we just CC the Kremlin on your next meeting and cut out the middleman?

GABBARD: This is just an attempt to smear me—

HIMES: Smear you? You lied under oath in a Senate hearing yesterday, claiming you knew nothing about classified information, while sitting in Signal chats where war plans were discussed. You retweet Kremlin-backed sources, then act shocked when people question your loyalties.

GABBARD: I’m focused on national security—

HIMES: National security? While pushing Russian propaganda and pretending you’re clueless about intelligence leaks? If a Democrat had done half of this, you’d be screaming treason on national TV.

GABBARD: This is about free speech—

HIMES: Free speech? You’re the President’s top intelligence advisor, not some random guy on Twitter. Every word you amplify has consequences. And right now, you’re handing America’s enemies exactly what they want—straight from your "personal account."

[https://x.com/Acyn/status/1904907517261705605](https://x.com/Acyn/status/1904907517261705605?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2REMtVP3jjMKYFscdTSkgssiPskIJ5u0UU8BICL74Xk3gZ1IrG5SjlPY4_aem_0_Zf4lg2psbdpfM5AuHNZw)

See less
Credit to Jon Stewart

Credit to Robert Reich
Friends,

After a federal judge pressed the Trump administration to provide evidence by 5 pm yesterday about whether the White House had violated the court’s order in deporting migrants with little to no due process, so-called border czar Tom Homan said that the flights would continue regardless. “We’re not stopping,” he said. “I don’t care what the judges think.”

In our system, judges don’t just “think.” They have the final say, unless their rulings are appealed to the Supreme Court, in which case the high court’s majority has the final final say.

Yesterday afternoon, it became apparent that Trump’s Justice Department shares Homan’s odd view of our judicial system. DOJ lawyers filed papers telling the judge that the administration would not provide any further information about the deportation flights, and that the court should vacate the hearing.

Then, speaking on Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondi criticized the judge, saying “What he’s done is an intrusion on the president’s authority.”

What’s going on here?

A very dangerous game.

On Sunday night, Trump told reporters that a federal judge in California who ordered the administration to rehire thousands of fired probationary workers was “putting himself in the position of the president of the United States, who was elected by close to 80 million votes.”

Excuse me? In our system of government, courts pass judgment on actions of a president and the executive branch. Courts don’t put themselves in the “position” of a president. They act as the Constitution empowers them to act — as a co-equal branch of government.

If the executive branch doesn’t agree with what a lower-court judge decides, it can appeal to a higher court and ultimately to the Supreme Court.

Trump isn’t the only one to make this unconstitutional claim. In early February, Trump’s vice president, JD Vance, declared that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” It was an odd statement coming from someone who has studied at one of America’s preeminent law schools — and it was logically absurd, since it’s up to judges (and eventually the Supreme Court’s justices) to determine a president’s “legitimate power.”

Let’s be clear. Trump has openly violated numerous laws and constitutional provisions — such as ending birthright citizenship; giving associates of Elon Musk’s government-slashing effort access to a sensitive Treasury Department system; transferring transgender female inmates to male prisons; placing thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development employees on leave; and effectively dismantling USAID and folding it into the State Department.

In response, federal judges have temporarily barred a slew of Trump orders from taking effect.

But not until now has Trump or his regime so blatantly refused to follow a judge’s order.

What happens when this or another lower-court ruling goes to the Supreme Court, and the high court rules against Trump?

Vance has said that if this occurs, Trump should “stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’”

Never mind that the quote attributed to Jackson is, as one scholar has noted, “probably apocryphal.” It’s heard more and more from Trump appointees these days, as exemplified by Homan’s remark this morning and this afternoon’s Justice Department filing.

Trump’s appointments in his second term are having the opposite effect of his first-term appointees. In his first term, they restrained him somewhat. Recall that the Justice Department’s top brass threatened to resign en masse if he appointed as attorney general the one assistant attorney general who was prepared to sell his soul to Trump and say the 2020 election was stolen from him.

This time, his appointees are magnifying his worst instincts. Rather than act as guardrails, they are egging Trump on.

Many people wonder if we’re in a “constitutional crisis.” Definitions of that phrase vary considerably, as do opinions about whether we’re in one now.

My worry is that Trump is surrounded by extremist anti-democracy nihilists, including his vice president, who are encouraging him to defy the Supreme Court.

If and when he does, we’ll be in a constitutional crisis that should cause every American to take to the streets.

What do you think?

TikTok · adamschiffca 63.2K likes, 7464 comments. “I'm not going to sugarcoat it. Today was a bad day for our country – and for the Democratic Party. Let's talk about it.”

Friends,

On Tuesday the House passed legislation to fund the government through September 30 and thereby avert a shutdown at the end of this week.

The measure now goes to the Senate, where Democrats must decide whether to support it and thereby hand Trump and Musk a blank check to continue their assault on the federal government.

The House bill would keep last year’s spending levels largely flat but would increase spending for the military by $6 billion and cut more than $1 billion from the District of Columbia’s budget.

In normal times, I recommend that Democrats vote for continuing budget resolutions because Democrats support the vital services that the government provides to the American people: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans services, education, the Food and Drug Administration, environmental protection, and much else.

In normal times, Democrats want to keep the government open.

In normal times, Democrats would be wrong to vote against a continuing resolution that caused the government to shut down.

But these are not normal times.

The president of the United States and the richest person in the world are already shutting the government down. They have effectively closed USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. They have sent half the personnel of the Department of Education packing. They are eliminating Environmental Protection Agency offices responsible for addressing high levels of pollution facing poor communities.

They are usurping from Congress the power of the purse — the power to decide what services are to be funded and received by the American people — and are arrogating that power to themselves.

In 1996, when I was in Bill Clinton’s Cabinet, we opposed Newt Gingrich’s budget bullying. We also understood that Gingrich’s demands would seriously cripple the federal government. So Bill Clinton refused to go along with Gingrich’s budget resolution, and the government was shuttered for four long painful weeks.

Today’s situation is far worse. Trump and Musk aren’t just making demands that would cripple the federal government. They are directly crippling the federal government.

Why should any member of Congress vote in favor of a continuing resolution to fund government services that are no longer continuing?

Why should any member of Congress vote to give Trump and Musk a trillion dollars and then let them decide how to spend it — or not spend it?

Why should Congress give Trump and Musk a blank check to continue their pillage?

The real choice congressional Democrats face today is not between a continuing resolution that allows the government to function normally or a government shutdown. Under Trump and Musk, the government is not functioning normally. It is not continuing. It is already shutting down.

Today’s real choice is between a continuing resolution that gives Trump and Musk free rein to decide what government services they want to continue and what services they want to shut down — or demanding that Trump and Musk stop usurping the power of Congress, as a condition for keeping the government funded.

Trump, Musk, and the rest of their regime have made it clear that they don’t care what Congress or the courts say. They are acting unconstitutionally. They are actively destroying our system of government.

The spineless Republicans will not say this publicly. So Democrats must — and Democrats must insist on budget language that holds Trump and Musk accountable.

The House’s Republican-drafted budget resolution isn’t contingent on Trump observing existing laws. It does not instruct the president to stop Musk from riding roughshod over the federal government. It doesn’t tell the president and his Cabinet to spend the money Congress intended to be spent.

Members of Trump’s team are already saying that if a continuing resolution is passed, they will not observe laws that Congress has enacted and will not spend funds that Congress has authorized and appropriated. Marco Rubio, for example, says that even if the State Department is fully funded, he will void 83 percent of the contracts authorized for USAID.

Senate Democrats are needed to obtain the 60 votes necessary to pass the House’s continuing budget resolution through the Senate. But there is no point in Democrats voting to fund the government only to let Trump and Musk do whatever they see fit with those funds.

Senate Democrats have an opportunity to stop Trump and Musk from their illegal and unconstitutional shutting of the government. Democrats should say they’ll vote for the continuing budget resolution to keep the government going only if Trump agrees to abide by the law and keep the government going — fully funding the services that Congress intends to be fully funded and stopping the pillaging.

If Democrats set out this condition clearly but Trump won’t agree, the consequences will be on Trump and the Republicans. They run the government now. They are the ones who are engaging in, or are complicit in, the wanton destruction now taking place.

This is an opportunity for the public to learn what Trump and Musk are doing, and why it’s illegal and unconstitutional.

In 1996, when Bill Clinton refused to go along with Newt Gingrich’s plan to cripple the federal government, causing the government to shut down for a month, Clinton wasn’t blamed. Gingrich was blamed.

If you live in a state with a Democratic senator, please phone them right now and tell them not to vote for the continuing resolution that gives Trump and Musk free rein to continue shutting the government.

The Capitol switchboard is 202-224-3121.

A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.
Credit to Robert Reich