speedster

I'll cite case law yet again. Kirby v. Duva. Thomas Kirby was in a pickup truck nearly surrounded by officers. Conflicting evidence showed Kirby may have been slowly maneuvering his truck to get away, not trying to run anyone over. Officers nevertheless opened fire, killing Kirby. The Sixth Circuit held a jury could find this shooting unconstitutional: under Kirby’s version, no officer was in the truck’s path or in danger, and the truck had even come to a complete stop before officers fired. The court noted it was clearly established (by Garner) that shooting a fleeing felon who poses no serious threat is unlawful. In other words, “a fleeing car is not automatically a deadly threat” – there must be an immediate risk of harm. Because Kirby was unarmed and driving at low speed with officers out of harm’s way, deadly force was excessive. "He states that he heard the Ranger’s engine revving, observed the truck’s backup lights come on, and saw gravel flying from its tires. There was a distance of less than two feet between himself and the Ranger, Buckley estimates, as it came at him in reverse, traveling seven to eight miles per hour. Buckley testified that he tried to get to the Ranger’s side by stepping backwards and sideways, but could not avoid the vehicle, which up approximately twelve feet. Buckley claims that as he was pushed backward by the Ranger, he was forced to hang on to its tailgate. Buckley states that he then began to lose his balance and slipped down a muddy embankment towards the ditch. Fearing for his life, Buckley fired his gun into the Ranger four to five times. Buckley aimed at Kirby’s head with each shot, “shooting to kill him.”" Huh, look at that. A car turned away from you, EVEN IF you feared for your life, doesn't mean you can kill someone else. And the supreme court has stated this case before too.

In charges every shot is a verdict, you can be not guilty on shot 1 but guilty on shot 2-4

I mean when you drive you press the gas pedal, its the only way you moved forward. As far as position of the ice officer I've posted a still of where he was when the first shot was fired, both feet firmly planted at the SIDE of the car. While the cars wheels was turned AWAY. The new video that came out prove it even more so with her steering well before in advance, violating protocol and their own rules on approaching a car, and it doesn't help the officer saying the words "f***ing b**ch" right after the shooting. Also holding his phone in one hand and shooting with the other is not gonna go well with any court, its very careless. Case law proves many many times again, as I have said again...position of his body matters. You cannot use deadly force to prevent a car getting away. Barnes v. Felix as well, the excessive use of force but be analyzed using the totality of circumstances, and NOT "the moment of threat". Cordova v. Aragon, Orn v. City of Tacoma are more case laws Villanueva v Cleveland where Police officers were not entitled to qualified immunity after fatally shooting victim because officers could have simply moved away from slowly moving vehicle. This case was also "Villanueva performed the three-point turn in a controlled manner, and when the Officers opened fire" - Hmm Ms. Good performed a controlled turn away from officers, clearly showed from videos. But sure lets ignore case law everyone. There's like more of these cases as well

wow never knew she deserved the death penalty for that professional protester, do you have financial proof of that?

I've shown my evidence of a body fully away, 2 feet firmly planted from the vehicle when the first was fired. Now where's your evidence of the claim of driving AT officers when the first shot was fired? Anyone? Cause that's what matters in an investigation where was the body and himself positioned when the shot is fired, and not just the first shot, but the ones after as well. But 5 shots point blank to the head justified? Instead of the hood? The wheels?

Let what investigation play out? The one DHS is doing where Noem said she was a domestic terrorist before they even found out her name or got her out of the car to the ambulance ICE was blocking. Or letting a independent agency of the BCA take care of this? If an nonpartisan group with a full investigation conclude it was justified, I will accept it.

Huh, why you look at that awful training practices, oh if he had time to pull out a gun then he had time to take 2 steps to the right. But wait there's more: What's this? The ICE officers to firmly planted feet the exact second he fired the firearm. The gun was shot from the side, not the front. 5 shots from the side. Regardless of all that, any lawyer and previous cases will tell you that the minute the vehicle turned it's wheels away the officer was never in danger. Remember EVERY shot needs to be justified if shot 1 was justified, doesn't mean shot 2-5 was. Police involved shootings has shown us this The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

Many attitudes of people pulling the ladder up

What body part was flung in the air and hit again? I guess not rendering aid for 10-15 minutes justified? After those events all these officers looked like a chicken without its head. Awful shoot and awful training considering no law enforcement ever says to do what we just saw.

How much time should I give you to prove you wrong?

ROK was not a success they're still "at war" Japan and Germany was in the 40's, 2 generations ago. Sure Maduro wasn't legitimate, but then why is Trump saying the VP should take charge then

"fugitive apprehension" I find it rich when people think we should conduct non-jurisdictional enforcement operations, let alone remove a head of state like they just did, Iraq and Libya come to mind. Then when is Putin being taken in the same manner? What about Maria Belova? Or better yet Netanyahu? "so hopefully the bureaucrats do not get too involved, but it will be tough sledding." That was the first words out of trumps mouth, he's there for oil and us companies to get involved, heck, he wants to call the shots over there with Maduros 2nd in command so much for democracy and liberation. Country is still be run by corrupt people.

I guess we didn't learn from Iraq how useless this is huh? Gotta love that America first policy from the peace president, am I right?

Gosh, a 3 month pregnant wife of a US Citizen with 2 other young kids who's gonna meet the unfortunate fate of ICE detention in deplorable conditions. I guess that's what makes us so great right? Incarcerating non violent criminals? https://newrepublic.com/post/204742/december-2025-deadliest-month-year-ice-detention-immigrant-deaths?cdmc=37IJG0YAp5rLS7wHCgngcqJVbWG&refcode2=37IJG0YAp5rLS7wHCgngcqJVbWG&refcodecdmc=37IJG0YAp5rLS7wHCgngcqJVbWG https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/24/man-dies-ice-custody-wife-deported

What matters is if the non-citizen had a legal entry at a port of entry, period. The 10 year rule thing can be done in an immigration court but it seems like they're no where close to that.

I just sat in the back when they asked my spouse the questions, then proceeded the whole officer in and out of the room. Assuming to talk to someone. Still sucks to not travel with the current administration even with gc coming in hand.

Yeah but the EB-5 actually requires legwork to invest for job creation and such. This gold card is just telling the ultra rich throw money at it

Nope, we were only separated while I got asked like 3 questions, then spouse was invited in. only took like 15 mins tops for that part

Yippie, interview done and approved. It was...interesting. Officer kept going in and out of their office and the interview took at least an hour with us being separated too. In the end officer said 3 weeks for the card in the mail, such a odd experience

Has there been any VJ members at the San Diego FO in the past 2 weeks that attended an interview there? K1 or AOS? You did this K1 process in 2014, you can't tell me it's the same government nor the same USCIS in how policy is done. You're implying nothing has changed, when policy changed right before our eyes. Groups of AILA lawyers have gathered and said this is happening at the SD FO, and pop ups happening at other places, are we really dismissing what lawyers have said about this?

Same here. Just found a person from SD FO that did get approved, and the officer did make mention about overstays. "She made it very clear to us that each day after the end date written on the I-94 is considered by law an overstay. Doesn’t matter if you file before expiration" and a later comment "Even if you do it with the K-1 visa, which is meant for this purpose, you end up overstaying cause there’s no way you can go through the wedding and the whole process in less than 3 months. That’s why it’s usually forgiven, as it should. Under this administration tho…" This brings the fact up that this particular FO is going off the chain. https://www.reddit.com/r/USCIS/s/0g3ShyZYmp

(Deleted the reddit post off the quote, since it takes so much space) They've posted a comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/USCIS/comments/1pjd7ce/uscis_aos_interview_san_diego_ice/ntcntzw/ " She wasn’t “picked up” for an overstay in the way people usually mean it. Her I-94 was still valid when we got married, and we filed the I-130/I-485 while she was in a lawful period of stay. What happened is that the officer at the interview treated it as an overstay situation even though the dates were valid, and ICE acted on that assumption. We’re now addressing it through an attorney because the timeline shows she was still in status when we submitted everything. I can’t get into more details publicly, but that’s the core of it." -- And what sense does it make to detain them, when there is no legal premise to deport them? What sense does it make to rip families apart and sending a person TO JAIL when USCIS has the jurisdiction? We shouldn't have sympathy for these non-criminals to suffer the deplorable conditions at ICE facilities? When there's report and proof of physical and sexual abuse, medical neglect? But we'll deny that fact?

Just to continue I found this: " She originally entered the U.S. on a J-1 visa. Before her J-1 status ended, you filed a Change of Status (COS) to B-2. USCIS approved that COS and issued an I-94 showing B-2 status valid She remained in the U.S. the entire time — no departures. Married You filed I-130 + I-485 Once USCIS accepted the filing and issued receipts in early July 2025, she was in pending AOS status. She now has a C09 EAD (10/24/2025–10/23/2030). " It really is just a waste of money to just be detaining people when they're legally allowed to adjust and USCIS has the jurisdiction to. It's also a waste of money diverting other federal officers from their other jobs that is clearly more important than non-criminal AOS interview goers.

It's been reported by several news stations and here that it's the San Diego FO and some other California FOs. The WHY is being reported, it's in the article! The pattern has been there, it's reported on. Lawyers have confirmed the memo across AILA.

Yeah, inspected and paroled still doesn't mean you need to be taken by ICE. Husband is a USC, it's the first paragraph "A Ukrainian woman married to a United States citizen has become one of the latest applicants to be detained by federal agents at their green card interview, despite her husband saying she had always had legal status." https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-b-chapter-2 " INA 245(a) Adjustment of Status Eligibility Requirements The alien must have been: Inspected and admitted into the United States; or Inspected and paroled into the United States." Parole isn't an issue. I've also seen nearly every I130 result in an interview regardless of how long the relationship was/proof you have. (i.e I'm one of them)