iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

Corey Rayburn Yung @coreyryung.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

My initial take on the criminal law governing the ICE shooting in MN: 609.066 of the MN Code controls a self-defense claim for a "peace officer" under state law. I'm not going to consider federal law given the capture of the DOJ by the Trump administration. 1/

1632685

brownc424.bsky.social @brownc424.bsky.social · 08/01/2026

Just a correction, but MN 626.84 does not include federal law enforcement agents within the definition of Peace Officer. (f) "Law enforcement agency" means: (1) a unit of state or local government...

010

Dan Clemens @clemensd1.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

Thanks for the breakdown.

010

Gia Monroe 🇺🇸 @giamonroe.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

Let a jury decide.

020

CmdrWilkens @cmdrwilkens.bsky.social · 08/01/2026

I think it was pointed out by someone else but the definitions within 609 have separate definitions for Peace Officers, who are board licensed by the state, and federal law enforcement. Its POSSIBLE (possible) that DHS does not fall under the PO section but rather the preceding one (.06 & .065)

110

mmkeefe.bsky.social @mmkeefe.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

Thank you for your concise breakdown of the legalities , appreciate it 🙏

030

Wiarton Willy @wiartonwilly.bsky.social · 08/01/2026

This all depends on the credentials of the “peace officer”, and whether or not they legitimately identified themselves as “peace officers”. ICE always demands identification while refusing to identify themselves. These goons should not receive the benefits afforded peace officers.

220

Sam Rubinstein @samrubinstein.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

Can you help me understand if supremacy clause/preemption has any role here. E.g. can the state prosecute a federal officer for homicide related to his acts in official capacity.

110

Bloody Redneck Lefty With A 🔪 @rednecklefty.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

What is the SOL for homicide or deprivation of civil rights at the federal level? BTW, thanks for your analysis here, disheartening though it may be.

110

Corey Rayburn Yung @coreyryung.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

The burden of proof is on the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was not acting in self-defense. Based on the two videos I've seen, the officer likely has a viable argument based on the first shot into the vehicle. 2/

21233

marymaggie567.bsky.social @marymaggie567.bsky.social · 08/01/2026

What about leaving the scene for shooter? For witnesses

000

Joe Hatley @joehatley.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

But wouldn’t it have been much faster and safer for the ICE agent to just step out of the way? The DOJ policy on use of force (though admittedly n/a as to DHS) explicitly requires this instead of shooting in a situation like this.

1210

John Carpenter’s Halloran @profhalloran.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

Legal analysis aside, I think that politically it's still worth going though the exercise even if the outcome is probably (given the standards involved) an acquittal.

020

jimmy alto @jimmyalto.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

bsky.app/profile/matt...

Matt Shuham@mattshuham.bsky.social

Context: A decade ago, Border Patrol agents had to be ordered not to put themselves in front of moving vehicles as a pretext to use deadly force www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/new-dir...

010

Radley Balko @radleybalko.bsky.social · 07/01/2026

What if the officer was trained that it is improper to fire into a moving vehicle even when it's coming at you, because doing so doesn't actually disable the threat? Fairly sure this is federal policy. Not yet sure if it's state policy, or which policy would apply in a criminal trial.

3461

suslibrarian.bsky.social @suslibrarian.bsky.social · 08/01/2026

I don’t think MN will designate ICE agents as “peace officers”.

000