- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
rwestmore7
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 872 |
| Registered on: | 11/12/2007 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: Trump: Anything less than Greenland in the hands of America is unacceptable
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/14/26 at 7:57 am to hawgfaninc
This sounds oddly familiar.
The survival of the nation now depends upon decisive action beyond our borders
The western regions of France are essential to our security and to the destiny of our people
If we do not act others will and that will not be permitted
Through years of disciplined leadership and sacrifice our military strength has been forged into a power without equal
Without it the alliances of this continent would be hollow and without meaning
They know this and so do we
The stability of Europe therefore demands that this territory be placed under our protection
Anything less would be a failure of duty to our people and to history
We will proceed
The future requires it
The survival of the nation now depends upon decisive action beyond our borders
The western regions of France are essential to our security and to the destiny of our people
If we do not act others will and that will not be permitted
Through years of disciplined leadership and sacrifice our military strength has been forged into a power without equal
Without it the alliances of this continent would be hollow and without meaning
They know this and so do we
The stability of Europe therefore demands that this territory be placed under our protection
Anything less would be a failure of duty to our people and to history
We will proceed
The future requires it
0
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 1:54 pm to the808bass
Then prove me wrong instead of name calling.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 1:51 pm to BuckPshrink
quote:
Every state covers its own statute.
quote:
state
Federal agent/state crime? Hmm
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 12:59 pm to I20goon
“Using a vehicle as a barricade” only becomes forcible under 111 if there is actual force or a threat of force against the officer and the officer is already engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person.
Intent alone does not convert presence or refusal into a felony. The statute requires forcible conduct, not just “I think they meant to interfere.”
Intent alone does not convert presence or refusal into a felony. The statute requires forcible conduct, not just “I think they meant to interfere.”
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 11:43 am to djsdawg
In 111, the word “forcibly” modifies every verb that follows it.
So the statute actually reads as:
forcibly assaults
forcibly resists
forcibly opposes
forcibly impedes
forcibly intimidates
forcibly interferes
“Forcibly” isn’t just a word you gloss over. It requires actual physical force, a threat of physical force, or conduct that creates an immediate risk of physical harm. So simply saying “she interfered” doesn’t satisfy the statute. The real question is: what did she do that was forcible?
Where is the force? Where is the threat of force? What physical action meets that legal requirement? And you can’t say that her vehicle that was pointed away from them was the force.
So the statute actually reads as:
forcibly assaults
forcibly resists
forcibly opposes
forcibly impedes
forcibly intimidates
forcibly interferes
“Forcibly” isn’t just a word you gloss over. It requires actual physical force, a threat of physical force, or conduct that creates an immediate risk of physical harm. So simply saying “she interfered” doesn’t satisfy the statute. The real question is: what did she do that was forcible?
Where is the force? Where is the threat of force? What physical action meets that legal requirement? And you can’t say that her vehicle that was pointed away from them was the force.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 10:58 am to BuckPshrink
I’m asking you to show me the statute where “confront”ing an ICE agent is a crime.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 10:20 am to Mo Jeaux
To be clear, I’m not saying ICE never detains U.S. citizens. We all know they do. I’m saying that whether they do it and whether they are legally authorized to do it in a given situation are two different questions. The issue here is not what happened in the moment. The issue is whether the law actually justified it.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 9:38 am to themunch
Please tell me who to contact to get on a payroll
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 9:37 am to bluedragon
So are you saying that they believed that she was an illegal and that’s why they stopped her? Literally no one else is asserting that. Of course, if they actually had reasonable suspicion that she was an illegal it would have been justified stop. But that is not at all what they were doing and it’s not at all what they claim they were doing.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 9:36 am to Penrod
I’m not gonna continue to type the same things over and over. See my previous replies about why this is untrue.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/11/26 at 9:35 am to BuckPshrink
Be loud and be wrong.
Being a federal LEO does not mean you have universal police powers everywhere for everything.
Federal authority is statute-based, not badge-based.
Being a federal LEO does not mean you have universal police powers everywhere for everything.
Federal authority is statute-based, not badge-based.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/10/26 at 11:46 pm to djsdawg
That’s not an answer in the legal sense. “Immigration operation” is a description of what ICE was doing in the area. It is not a statute, and it is not an element of any criminal offense.
The question was what specific official duty was the agent lawfully performing as to her that she impeded?
Under 18 U.S.C. 111 and every other federal obstruction statute, the officer must be engaged in the lawful performance of official duties with respect to the person being charged. Authority over an immigration target does not automatically extend to every third party nearby. So if the claim is that she committed a felony, then point to the code section and walk through the elements:
1. What statute applied to her at that moment?
2. What was the forcible act?
3. What facts existed before the detention that created probable cause?
Until those are answered, “they were doing an immigration operation” is just a narrative, not a legal justification.
The question was what specific official duty was the agent lawfully performing as to her that she impeded?
Under 18 U.S.C. 111 and every other federal obstruction statute, the officer must be engaged in the lawful performance of official duties with respect to the person being charged. Authority over an immigration target does not automatically extend to every third party nearby. So if the claim is that she committed a felony, then point to the code section and walk through the elements:
1. What statute applied to her at that moment?
2. What was the forcible act?
3. What facts existed before the detention that created probable cause?
Until those are answered, “they were doing an immigration operation” is just a narrative, not a legal justification.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/10/26 at 11:40 pm to Rekrul
You keep asserting “impeding their official duties” as if that phrase itself is a felony. It isn’t. So the first question still hasn’t been answered. Where, specifically, is “impeding their official duties” defined as a standalone federal crime in the U.S. Code?
Because if you’re relying on 18 U.S.C. § 111, that statute does not criminalize mere interference or inconvenience. It requires a forcible act, and it only applies when the officer is engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person. Both of those elements have to be established with facts that existed before the attempt to detain her.
So walk it through in order:
1. What specific statute was being violated before the detention?
2. What was the forcible act at that moment?
3. What lawful authority did the officer have over her, as opposed to someone else nearby?
If you can’t answer those three questions with actual code sections and facts, then saying “they were impeding” is just a conclusion, not a legal argument.
And yes, the officer’s positioning matters. Courts and use-of-force policy both recognize that officers cannot create the very danger they later point to as justification. Whether the car was stopped or moving, you still have to establish lawful authority and the elements of the offense before the encounter escalated.
Because if you’re relying on 18 U.S.C. § 111, that statute does not criminalize mere interference or inconvenience. It requires a forcible act, and it only applies when the officer is engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person. Both of those elements have to be established with facts that existed before the attempt to detain her.
So walk it through in order:
1. What specific statute was being violated before the detention?
2. What was the forcible act at that moment?
3. What lawful authority did the officer have over her, as opposed to someone else nearby?
If you can’t answer those three questions with actual code sections and facts, then saying “they were impeding” is just a conclusion, not a legal argument.
And yes, the officer’s positioning matters. Courts and use-of-force policy both recognize that officers cannot create the very danger they later point to as justification. Whether the car was stopped or moving, you still have to establish lawful authority and the elements of the offense before the encounter escalated.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/10/26 at 9:32 pm to djsdawg
Calling a car a “weapon” doesn’t magically satisfy the elements of a felony.
For 18 U.S.C. § 111, the government has to show forcible assault, resistance, or interference while the officer is performing lawful duties. Courts and police-use-of-force policies are very clear that an officer cannot create a deadly-force scenario by stepping into the path of a vehicle during a questionable stop and then claim the vehicle was used as a weapon.
If the vehicle is pointed away and the officer moves in front of it, that is the officer placing himself in danger. That tactical choice matters. You don’t get probable cause for a felony by manufacturing the threat you later point to.
So if someone thinks § 111 applies here, they still have to walk through the elements and the facts: what was the forcible act, what was the lawful duty as to that person, and what existed before the stop. Labeling the car a “weapon” after the fact is not a substitute for that analysis.
For 18 U.S.C. § 111, the government has to show forcible assault, resistance, or interference while the officer is performing lawful duties. Courts and police-use-of-force policies are very clear that an officer cannot create a deadly-force scenario by stepping into the path of a vehicle during a questionable stop and then claim the vehicle was used as a weapon.
If the vehicle is pointed away and the officer moves in front of it, that is the officer placing himself in danger. That tactical choice matters. You don’t get probable cause for a felony by manufacturing the threat you later point to.
So if someone thinks § 111 applies here, they still have to walk through the elements and the facts: what was the forcible act, what was the lawful duty as to that person, and what existed before the stop. Labeling the car a “weapon” after the fact is not a substitute for that analysis.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/10/26 at 9:22 pm to Rekrul
First, 18 U.S.C. 111 is not “obstruction” in the generic sense. It is about forcibly assaulting, resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with a covered officer while they are performing official duties. The word “forcibly” is doing a lot of work there. That is why courts don’t treat ordinary nonviolent inconvenience, presence, speech, or simple traffic issues as automatic 111 felonies.
Second, yes, 111 applies to federal officers and it can apply to certain other officers when they are assisting federal functions, but none of that changes the threshold issue I raised. Even under 111, the government still has to prove the officer was engaged in the lawful performance of official duties and that the defendant used force or a threat of force. You do not get to skip straight to “they were impeding” and treat that as probable cause for a felony without showing how the actual elements fit the facts.
Third, the 10th Amendment point has nothing to do with whether 111 exists. It is about whether states and local agencies can be compelled to help ICE enforce immigration law. They cannot be forced to do that, and many jurisdictions lawfully decline cooperation. That is why ICE often relies on partnerships with local agencies when it can.
So if you think 111 applies here, fine. Walk through it. What was the forcible act, what was the lawful duty being performed as to that person, and what was the probable cause before the stop. If you can’t do that, citing “18 U.S.C. 111” like it’s a magic spell doesn’t prove anything.
Second, yes, 111 applies to federal officers and it can apply to certain other officers when they are assisting federal functions, but none of that changes the threshold issue I raised. Even under 111, the government still has to prove the officer was engaged in the lawful performance of official duties and that the defendant used force or a threat of force. You do not get to skip straight to “they were impeding” and treat that as probable cause for a felony without showing how the actual elements fit the facts.
Third, the 10th Amendment point has nothing to do with whether 111 exists. It is about whether states and local agencies can be compelled to help ICE enforce immigration law. They cannot be forced to do that, and many jurisdictions lawfully decline cooperation. That is why ICE often relies on partnerships with local agencies when it can.
So if you think 111 applies here, fine. Walk through it. What was the forcible act, what was the lawful duty being performed as to that person, and what was the probable cause before the stop. If you can’t do that, citing “18 U.S.C. 111” like it’s a magic spell doesn’t prove anything.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/10/26 at 7:56 pm to djsdawg
So, you believe an ICE agent should just be able to say frick the 10th amendment?
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/10/26 at 7:46 pm to rwestmore7
Another reason ICE has more difficulty operating in some states and cities is that local law enforcement and governments often lawfully refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Under federalism and the Tenth Amendment, states and local agencies cannot be compelled to enforce federal law, and many jurisdictions have sanctuary policies that limit how and when their officers assist ICE.
Those limits are designed to protect community trust and are legally permitted, but they do make federal enforcement more complex and more constrained by the rule of law, which is why ICE so often tries to work alongside local agencies when it can.
What makes this especially ironic is that many of the same people arguing on the other side of this issue are usually the loudest about states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment. You can’t praise state sovereignty when it suits you and then turn around and act shocked when states and cities exercise that authority to limit federal power in their own communities.
Those limits are designed to protect community trust and are legally permitted, but they do make federal enforcement more complex and more constrained by the rule of law, which is why ICE so often tries to work alongside local agencies when it can.
What makes this especially ironic is that many of the same people arguing on the other side of this issue are usually the loudest about states’ rights and the Tenth Amendment. You can’t praise state sovereignty when it suits you and then turn around and act shocked when states and cities exercise that authority to limit federal power in their own communities.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/10/26 at 7:38 pm to winkchance
What you quoted from ICE’s website and Title 18 is all correct in general.
But none of it answers the actual starting question in this case.
ICE’s mission statement explains what ICE is responsible for.
Title 18 explains what counts as interference once an officer is already acting lawfully toward the person being charged.
DOJ use of force policy explains when deadly force may be justified during a lawful encounter.
All of those assume the same thing first:
that the officer already had lawful authority over the specific person when the encounter began.
That is the part everyone keeps skipping.
ICE having authority to enforce immigration law does not automatically give them authority over a third party U.S. citizen.
Interference laws do not create jurisdiction. They only apply after lawful authority already exists.
Use of force policy does not fix an unlawful stop. It only governs conduct once the encounter is lawful.
So the question still starts here:
What specific federal statute did she violate that gave ICE lawful authority to stop her vehicle in the first place?
If the answer is blocking the street, that is almost always a state or local traffic issue, not a federal crime, and ICE does not have general police powers to enforce traffic law on U.S. citizens. The correct response would be to involve local police.
If the answer is interfering with the operation, then the elements of a real federal obstruction statute still have to be met.
Those statutes require the officer to be engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person. Authority over an immigration target does not automatically extend to every bystander nearby.
Only if ICE had independent probable cause that she herself was committing a federal crime they are authorized to enforce, such as forcible interference under 18 U.S.C. 111 which requires actual force or threat of force and not just being inconvenient, would the stop become lawful.
And on the vehicle issue, DOJ policy is clear that officers should not step in front of a moving vehicle unless deadly force is otherwise unavoidable. An officer cannot create a vehicle threat by stepping into the path of a car during a questionable stop. If the original stop lacked lawful basis, that self created danger seriously weakens any later claim of reasonableness.
That is why this is not something you can settle with a quick Google answer.
It comes down to statutory authority, jurisdiction over the specific person, and the actual elements of the offense.
ETA:
This is also exactly why ICE typically conducts operations with local law enforcement and other agencies.
Local police have general authority to deal with traffic violations, crowd control, and third-party interference. ICE does not.
When situations involving bystanders or traffic arise, the proper response is for local police to step in, because that is who actually has jurisdiction over those kinds of offenses.
That inter-agency setup exists for a reason. Each agency’s authority is different, and those limits matter.
But none of it answers the actual starting question in this case.
ICE’s mission statement explains what ICE is responsible for.
Title 18 explains what counts as interference once an officer is already acting lawfully toward the person being charged.
DOJ use of force policy explains when deadly force may be justified during a lawful encounter.
All of those assume the same thing first:
that the officer already had lawful authority over the specific person when the encounter began.
That is the part everyone keeps skipping.
ICE having authority to enforce immigration law does not automatically give them authority over a third party U.S. citizen.
Interference laws do not create jurisdiction. They only apply after lawful authority already exists.
Use of force policy does not fix an unlawful stop. It only governs conduct once the encounter is lawful.
So the question still starts here:
What specific federal statute did she violate that gave ICE lawful authority to stop her vehicle in the first place?
If the answer is blocking the street, that is almost always a state or local traffic issue, not a federal crime, and ICE does not have general police powers to enforce traffic law on U.S. citizens. The correct response would be to involve local police.
If the answer is interfering with the operation, then the elements of a real federal obstruction statute still have to be met.
Those statutes require the officer to be engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person. Authority over an immigration target does not automatically extend to every bystander nearby.
Only if ICE had independent probable cause that she herself was committing a federal crime they are authorized to enforce, such as forcible interference under 18 U.S.C. 111 which requires actual force or threat of force and not just being inconvenient, would the stop become lawful.
And on the vehicle issue, DOJ policy is clear that officers should not step in front of a moving vehicle unless deadly force is otherwise unavoidable. An officer cannot create a vehicle threat by stepping into the path of a car during a questionable stop. If the original stop lacked lawful basis, that self created danger seriously weakens any later claim of reasonableness.
That is why this is not something you can settle with a quick Google answer.
It comes down to statutory authority, jurisdiction over the specific person, and the actual elements of the offense.
ETA:
This is also exactly why ICE typically conducts operations with local law enforcement and other agencies.
Local police have general authority to deal with traffic violations, crowd control, and third-party interference. ICE does not.
When situations involving bystanders or traffic arise, the proper response is for local police to step in, because that is who actually has jurisdiction over those kinds of offenses.
That inter-agency setup exists for a reason. Each agency’s authority is different, and those limits matter.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/8/26 at 4:26 pm to BTROleMisser
You are an unbelievably angry person. Seek help
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/8/26 at 4:21 pm to djsdawg
When obstruction statutes (18 U.S.C. § 111, § 1501, § 1505, etc.) require the officer to be engaged in the “lawful performance of official duties,” that isn’t an abstract concept. The duty must be lawful as applied to the person being accused of obstruction.ICE’s lawful authority over an immigration suspect does not automatically extend to a third-party U.S. citizen. Without independent jurisdiction over her, there is no “lawful duty” being obstructed as to her, and therefore no obstruction offense to bootstrap detention from.
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted by rwestmore7 on 1/8/26 at 4:09 pm to dalefla
It’s not cops dumbass. It’s ice and they have no legal authority to arrest someone for blocking a fricking road.
Popular
8
