by zahlman | 2026-01-13 19:29:27+00:00
> Speaking of weasel words, "reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime" is a higher standard than you imply

I didn't use the word "articulable", but the fact that someone does not articulate a basis for suspicion does not imply that the basis cannot be articulated.

> So, if that's the crime, the agent would need to articulate their reason for suspecting that the woman had illegally crossed the border. Did he ever articulate that reasoning? Did he ever even articulate the crime?

All of this is completely irrelevant. You are conflating entirely different things. The point about "ICE operating on reasonable suspicion" relates to their general operation with respect to suspected illegal immigrants, which justifies the fact that on occasion their targets happen to turn out to be US citizens. They are not legally required to be correct 100% of the time.

The current case is about someone explicitly not suspected of being an illegal immigrant, whom federal ICE agents were nevertheless completely legally entitled to arrest, because of their judgment that she was committing a federal crime: specifically, obstruction of (federal) justice.

And, as it turns out in my current research, they were legally entitled to order her out of the vehicle even without intent to arrest her nor suspicion of any crime (although she was caught in flagrante delicto with regard to the crime):

> If a police officer lawfully orders you to exit your vehicle during a traffic stop, you are required by law to comply.... In the Mimms case, the Court ruled that police officers can instruct drivers to exit their vehicles during a traffic stop without needing additional probable cause or reasonable suspicion. This authority was expanded in Wilson to include passengers. It is important to understand that an officer does not need probable cause or reasonable suspicion of another crime to issue this order. Additionally, officers can also instruct vehicle occupants to re-enter the vehicle."

> If you refuse to comply with a lawful order from an officer, you could be arrested. This scenario assumes the traffic stop itself was lawful, based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

(via https://jmarshlaw.com/can-you-refuse-to-exit-your-vehicle-wh... many other sources can easily be found with a search engine. Emphasis theirs. It should not require explanation that "the car is perpendicular to the road across the middle" is sufficient justification for a traffic stop. Traffic is already stopped!)

> Oh, I guess we'll just ignore all that "RAS" stuff, then. If that's the case, the agent didn't have the authority to arrest the woman at all.

Search engines tell me that "RAS" stands for "Reticular Activating System", a structure found within the brain. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You beg the question without even stating it. I have no idea what the antecedent of "that" could possibly be in "if that's the case", but also you have to establish it to have a logical argument.

> So, rather than resisting arrest, she was defending herself from an unlawful assaulter

No, she was not assaulted. There was no threat to make unlawful physical contact with her.

There is also no reasonable possibility that she could have failed to understand that she was dealing with ICE officers, who definitionally are federal LEO. There were identifying markers all over the place, she had already seen one up close and personal (the sarcastic "I'm not mad at you" moment), and multiple witnesses have corroborated that there was an active anti-ICE protest and that she was there to participate in it.

> And the assaulter, in a fit of rage from seeing her attempted escape

The only way I can possibly imagine that you think this makes sense, is if you are under the incorrect impression that the officer saying "get out of the fucking car" and "fucking bitch" is the one who was struck. The evidence directly contradicts the first (it was said by the other officer who approached the driver's side window) and does not support the second (no evidence of who said it, despite widely disseminated propaganda). There was simply no time in which to "see her attempted escape" and process it in any conscious manner. The simple, obvious motivation is the objective fact that a car was headed towards him in the instant before the shots (and did strike him, and did visibly cause him to lose his balance, as corroborated from multiple angles).

> Honestly, I've read enough of your comments to know you're not stupid. Why go to such lengths to defend these actions of the agent in question?

"Come on, you're better than this" is still fundamentally ad hominem. But I am not at all "going to lengths". I am pointing out things that anyone who examines the evidence impartially, and who knows the law (or even attempts to find it out), can clearly see.

> Do you really not think the agent should be expected to behave more professionally?

I see no fault in Ross' professionalism. In fact, he did an excellent job of not succumbing to Good's partner's provocation.

As for the other agent, I am willing to excuse the use of the word "fucking" on the third or fourth iteration of "get out of the car" without any sign of compliance, given that that is a lawful order.

> I don't believe you simply can't see how he needlessly escalated the situation well before the woman tried to drive away.

To be able to see it, it would have to have happened. The evidence directly contradicts you, very clearly.

Ross did not even speak to Good during the supposed "escalation". He was dealing with her partner, outside the vehicle on the far side, before walking back to his peers taking a path in front of the vehicle (under the reasonable expectation that the car would stay put, because Good was being ordered to get out of the car and also just on general principle).

It is Good's partner who escalated, by choosing to use her freedom of speech to engage belligerently, and then by encouraging Good to "drive, baby, drive".

The other officer was issuing a lawful order. If you appear to be obstructing traffic generally, and especially in a way that blocks the path of a law enforcement vehicle, that is a crime, and when they are federal LEOs then federal jurisdiction applies. When an LEO lawfully tells you "get out of the car", you are legally required to get out of the car. In practical terms, you get out of the car and talk to a lawyer later if you have reason to suppose it wasn't a lawful request.