https://archive.is/2OdeD

Attorney General Pam Bondi was so furious with six federal prosecutors who announced they would resign rather than prosecute the widow of a Minnesota woman killed by an ICE agent that she fired them before they had a chance to give their notice.

  • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Devial@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          23 hours ago

          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.

    • 4am@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      2 days ago

      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

        • TipRing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

        • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

    • Gsus4@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      I guess they should have used that one on tramp’s many crimes…but instead they need RICO?

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 days ago

          It’s Wilhoit’s Law:

          Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition … There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.