- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Will Trump pardon the ICE agent before leaving office if the Dems win the Prez.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:09 am
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:09 am
An incoming Dem administration may go after him if they win in a few years.
15
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:11 am to ItTakesAThief
The Dims are gonna go after anyone and everyone next time. It will make the DDR look like Disneyworld
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:15 am to ItTakesAThief
I am interested in the pardon process, I always thought I pardon could not be handed down until a charge had been filed, I assume I am wrong about that since the autopen dished out pardons for any and all wrong doing spanning over basically a decade for hunter.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:17 am to ItTakesAThief
quote:Doesn't matter. This guy will be under indictment for violation of Minnesota criminal law LONG before Trump leaves office.
Will Trump pardon the ICE agent before leaving office
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:24 am to ItTakesAThief
Federal immunity laws apply
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:25 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Doesn't matter. This guy will be under indictment for violation of Minnesota criminal law LONG before Trump leaves office.
Wrong. He can't be charged in state court for this. He is subject to federal law. The FBI is the investigator.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:25 am to ItTakesAThief
The question for Agent Ross will be "can Minnesota successfully prosecute him?" If so, like with the Tina Peters case, Trump's pardon would be meaningless.
The most likely charge would be negligent homicide.
Here's how ChatGPT analyzed that:
I need to be precise here, because this is a criminal-law determination.
No court has found Agent Ross “guilty.” Only a jury (or judge) can do that.
What we can do—properly—is analyze whether the known facts, if proven, would satisfy the elements of negligent homicide under Minnesota law.
1. The controlling statute
Minnesota negligent homicide is defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.205(1):
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree if the person causes the death of another by culpable negligence, whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm.
This is commonly referred to as negligent homicide.
2. What the state must prove
The prosecution would need to show all of the following:
Ross caused the death of Renee Good
He acted with culpable negligence (more than ordinary carelessness)
He created an unreasonable risk
He consciously took that risk
He was not legally justified (lawful authority + reasonable force)
3. Applying those elements to the facts as discussed
(1) Causation
There appears to be no dispute that:
Ross fired the shot
The shot caused Good’s death
?? Element satisfied.
(2) Culpable negligence
Minnesota courts define culpable negligence as:
Gross negligence combined with recklessness—a conscious disregard of a known risk.
Relevant facts (if proven):
Stepping in front of a moving vehicle
Issuing commands without clear legal authority
Using deadly force against a driver who was attempting to leave
No traffic-enforcement authority
No clear felony arrest in progress
Minnesota cases have repeatedly held that:
Creating the danger yourself and then responding with deadly force supports culpable negligence.
?? A jury could reasonably find culpable negligence.
(3) Unreasonable risk
Deadly force against a motorist:
Who is not lawfully detained
Who is driving away
Who is not using the vehicle as a weapon toward others
…is almost certainly an unreasonable risk under Minnesota law.
?? Element likely satisfied.
(4) Conscious risk-taking
This does not require intent to kill.
It requires that Ross:
Knew firing posed a serious risk of death, and
Chose to fire anyway
Every firearms-trained federal agent:
Knows a gunshot to a vehicle occupant risks death
Is trained to avoid positioning themselves in front of vehicles
?? This element is very strong for the state.
(5) Lack of legal justification (the critical issue)
This is where everything turns.
Deadly force is justified only if:
The officer was lawfully performing duties, and
Faced an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm
If:
ICE lacked authority to detain her, and
Ross placed himself in danger, and
The car was attempting to flee, not attack
Then Minnesota law treats this as:
An unjustified use of deadly force
? Justification likely fails.
4. Supremacy Clause does NOT block this charge
Minnesota can prosecute a federal agent if:
He exceeded lawful federal authority, or
Used unreasonable force
A jury finding negligent homicide would necessarily imply:
No Supremacy Clause immunity
5. Bottom-line legal assessment
Again, this is not a declaration of guilt.
But legally speaking:
If the facts are proven as they have been publicly described, a Minnesota jury could reasonably find Agent Ross guilty of negligent homicide under § 609.205(1).
This is not a stretch charge.
It is well within Minnesota precedent.
6. Why prosecutors might choose this charge
Negligent homicide:
Does not require intent
Fits officer-created-danger scenarios
Avoids the higher bar of intentional murder
Has succeeded in prior Minnesota police cases
Final answer
No one is “guilty” until conviction.
But yes—based on Minnesota law and the facts as discussed, the elements of negligent homicide appear plausibly satisfied, making the charge legally viable and serious.
The most likely charge would be negligent homicide.
Here's how ChatGPT analyzed that:
I need to be precise here, because this is a criminal-law determination.
No court has found Agent Ross “guilty.” Only a jury (or judge) can do that.
What we can do—properly—is analyze whether the known facts, if proven, would satisfy the elements of negligent homicide under Minnesota law.
1. The controlling statute
Minnesota negligent homicide is defined in Minn. Stat. § 609.205(1):
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree if the person causes the death of another by culpable negligence, whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm.
This is commonly referred to as negligent homicide.
2. What the state must prove
The prosecution would need to show all of the following:
Ross caused the death of Renee Good
He acted with culpable negligence (more than ordinary carelessness)
He created an unreasonable risk
He consciously took that risk
He was not legally justified (lawful authority + reasonable force)
3. Applying those elements to the facts as discussed
(1) Causation
There appears to be no dispute that:
Ross fired the shot
The shot caused Good’s death
?? Element satisfied.
(2) Culpable negligence
Minnesota courts define culpable negligence as:
Gross negligence combined with recklessness—a conscious disregard of a known risk.
Relevant facts (if proven):
Stepping in front of a moving vehicle
Issuing commands without clear legal authority
Using deadly force against a driver who was attempting to leave
No traffic-enforcement authority
No clear felony arrest in progress
Minnesota cases have repeatedly held that:
Creating the danger yourself and then responding with deadly force supports culpable negligence.
?? A jury could reasonably find culpable negligence.
(3) Unreasonable risk
Deadly force against a motorist:
Who is not lawfully detained
Who is driving away
Who is not using the vehicle as a weapon toward others
…is almost certainly an unreasonable risk under Minnesota law.
?? Element likely satisfied.
(4) Conscious risk-taking
This does not require intent to kill.
It requires that Ross:
Knew firing posed a serious risk of death, and
Chose to fire anyway
Every firearms-trained federal agent:
Knows a gunshot to a vehicle occupant risks death
Is trained to avoid positioning themselves in front of vehicles
?? This element is very strong for the state.
(5) Lack of legal justification (the critical issue)
This is where everything turns.
Deadly force is justified only if:
The officer was lawfully performing duties, and
Faced an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm
If:
ICE lacked authority to detain her, and
Ross placed himself in danger, and
The car was attempting to flee, not attack
Then Minnesota law treats this as:
An unjustified use of deadly force
? Justification likely fails.
4. Supremacy Clause does NOT block this charge
Minnesota can prosecute a federal agent if:
He exceeded lawful federal authority, or
Used unreasonable force
A jury finding negligent homicide would necessarily imply:
No Supremacy Clause immunity
5. Bottom-line legal assessment
Again, this is not a declaration of guilt.
But legally speaking:
If the facts are proven as they have been publicly described, a Minnesota jury could reasonably find Agent Ross guilty of negligent homicide under § 609.205(1).
This is not a stretch charge.
It is well within Minnesota precedent.
6. Why prosecutors might choose this charge
Negligent homicide:
Does not require intent
Fits officer-created-danger scenarios
Avoids the higher bar of intentional murder
Has succeeded in prior Minnesota police cases
Final answer
No one is “guilty” until conviction.
But yes—based on Minnesota law and the facts as discussed, the elements of negligent homicide appear plausibly satisfied, making the charge legally viable and serious.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:27 am to Nosevens
quote:
Federal immunity laws apply
They do, but they don't automatically protect Ross. If Ross exceeded his authority as a Federal Agent, he doesn't have immunity.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:28 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:I am about 99% certain that you are mistaken.quote:Wrong. He can't be charged in state court for this. He is subject to federal law. The FBI is the investigator.
Doesn't matter. This guy will be under indictment for violation of Minnesota criminal law LONG before Trump leaves office.
He can certainly be charged under Minnesota law. The case might be subject to removal to federal court, but the applicable law would still be that of Minnesota.
At least that is my understanding without conducting a bunch of research.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:29 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Doesn't matter. This guy will be under indictment for violation of Minnesota criminal law LONG before Trump leaves office.
Not a chance, Hank. You should know better.
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 9:30 am
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:32 am to BBONDS25
quote:Not saying who will win. Not saying that it might not be removed to fed court.
Doesn't matter. This guy will be under indictment for violation of Minnesota criminal law LONG before Trump leaves office.quote:
Not a chance .... You should know better.
But it is Minnesota. He will definitely be indicted.
This post was edited on 1/9/26 at 9:33 am
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:32 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
Issuing commands without clear legal authority
quote:
ICE lacked authority to detain her
Chat GPT got these dead wrong. There is a reason lawyers get in trouble for using chatGPT without verifying.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:33 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
Doesn't matter. This guy will be under indictment for violation of Minnesota criminal law LONG before Trump leaves office.
R.A., have you looked into whether the order by an ICE AGENT to "get out of the fricking car" was a lawful order?
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:33 am to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:
But it is Minnesota. He will definitely be indicted.
Nope. The DA would be sued into oblivion.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:34 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
R.A., have you looked into whether the order by an ICE AGENT to "get out of the fricking car" was a lawful order?
Of course it is. Good lord.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:34 am to IvoryBillMatt
quote:No, but I suspect that the order was indeed lawful. She was blocking the street.
R.A., have you looked into whether the order by an ICE AGENT to "get out of the fricking car" was a lawful order?
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:35 am to IvoryBillMatt
Correct but it was Noem who stated that he was diligent about his job, decision and his immunity in response to Minnesota leaders saying he murdered the gal
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:38 am to ItTakesAThief
Walz will bring state charges so DJT can't pardon
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:41 am to ItTakesAThief
No need on either case.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News