|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Reasonable but mistaken, individualization, and lack of reflection
by John Banzhaf III
WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 8, 2026) – Most of the discussion of the Minneapolis shooting in the media, by pundits and even lawyers, seemingly overlooks at least three important legal principles which might prevent the officer from being criminally charged, much less convicted, argues public interest law professor John Banzhaf, who correctly predicted the inability of obtain criminal convictions in many well publicized cases where guilt seemed clear.
The first is the doctrine of reasonable mistake.
In cases where a defendant claimed that he used deadly force in self defense or in defense of others, commentators were correct in saying that he is not guilty of a crime if he had a reasonable belief that his action was reasonably necessary to protect his life or the life of another.
But what is not emphasized is that the belief need not be correct; indeed, it could even clearly be a mistake.
In order not to deter people from defending themselves, the law permits the use of deadly force even if the defendant was clearly mistaken; provided only that the mistake was a reasonable one under the circumstances.
So even if objectively and in fact the driver did not create such the requisite danger, the agent would not be guilty if he in fact had such a belief; providing only that the belief was not clearly unreasonable.
The second issue is the individualization of the belief.
The legal test is not whether a reasonable person, or even reasonable ICE officer, would have had the requisite belief under the circumstances.
Rather, the test is whether this particular individual himself had the belief, and this individualized subjective (not objective) test takes into account factors such as prior experience.
Several reports and social media discussions indicate that the ICE agent was very recently involved in a prior incident where he was struck or dragged by a vehicle during an enforcement operation.
If this is true, it might logically make him more wary than other men or ICE agents of the serious dangers of a vehicle apparently accelerating towards him, and the resulting belief that drastic action was necessary.
In any criminal trial, a judge would charge the jurors that they must take this prior experience into account in determining if the fear of this particular individual (and not just of a reasonable person or a reasonable ICE agent) was reasonable in light of his own very specific history.
A prosecutor would also have to take this into account in determining whether he would probably be able to obtain a conviction; if not, ethically he should not charge the agent.
The third issue is the lack of time to reflect.
As a very famous Supreme Court justice once explained, “Detached reflection cannot be expected in the presence of an uplifted knife.”
In other words, the legal test is not what rational jurors, taking their time to carefully deliberate and consider all the alternatives in the safety of the jury room, might conclude what would be a reasonable response to an apparent threat.
Rather the test is whether the decision the agent was forced to make in a split second with a car accelerating towards him – with his adrenaline pumping and his heart racing – was reasonable; and not what a person with time to carefully consider and weigh all the possibilities in a position of complete safety might have concluded.
In summary, suggests the law professor, these three important legal issues must be considered in evaluating what happened in Minneapolis.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Commentary, National News
The agent walked around the front of the vehicle. Obviously he wasn’t “afraid from previous vehicle encounters”. This was a perfect opportunity for a warning shot into the empty passenger seat.
Most agencies prohibit warning shots because they are highly ineffective at stopping assaults and are dangerous to third parties. A shot into the passenger seat? Even if a warning shot was authorized by ICE policy how would the agent know there isn’t a kid in the back seat? Seats don’t stop bullets generally unless the frame is struck and even then they can be deflected.
Warning shots waste time when making a split-second decision to save your or someone else’s life.
Technically, I don’t think “warning” shots are legal. No matter what Joe Biden has said. Have you seen video of the the ICE agent stepping in front of the vehicle? Or, are you going by, he said, she said?
FAFO!
But if she ran into a crowd of protestors instead of an ICE Agent, or if she ran into protestors trying to elude the ICE Agents, it would have been a whole lot different.
Right?
As trump said, the officer was run over and brought to the hospital with severe injuries. He wouldn’t lie about that or anything else ever. Even though there is a video of the officer walking away after murdering a woman, trump wants you to believe the officer was severely injured. Don’t believe your eyes, dear trump supporters. Just listen to trump.
The same officer was dragged over 100 feet in the summer and ended up with over 60 stitches. Listen to Trump? I’d believe Trump before MS Now. The politicians of Minnesota, Walz and Frey have instigated this incident by encouraging people to protest the enforcing of federal immigration law passed by congress and signed into law. Why aren’t they telling people to stay home and not impede federal agents or imposing a curfew to keep citizens from getting hurt? They can’t because they have to use this incident to cover up allowing their Somali buddies bilking the taxpayers of 9 billion dollars that put them in office. They are doing the same thing that the South did which led to a civil war.
Would people feel better if she had run over the ICE agent and killed him before she was shot at and killed?
To all VDC commenters –
As stated since late 2025, in 2026 all commenters must be Sustaining Subscribers.
Most regular commenters already are Sustaining Subscribers. To you we say THANK YOU!, you are the reason why 2025 was another record year for views on http://www.vermontdailychronicle.com: 2.6 million. Again, thank you so much.
A Sustaining Subscriber is someone who from November 1 – January 1 made an annual contribution of $108, either by check or online, or who became an online $9/monthly contributor before January 1.
Also, since January 2025 we have been (albeit gradually) enforcing our policy of requiring full names for all commenters. The latter is meant to promote transparency and genuine discourse. The former is an economic decision intended to enhance the longterm sustainability of VDC.
Both of these policies will take full effect this coming week. As non-subscribers and commenters not using their full names (first initial, full last name not preferred but will be accepted) will not be permitted to comment, full stop. We have allowed a week or more in order to ensure that late arrivals of 2025 contributions and procrastinators are accounted for. This week, the online giving link will be updated for 2026, with $11/month and $132/year.
Please note: if you are not yet a Sustaining Subscriber, please subscribe immediately online. Or send a check to VDC, P.O. Box 1547, Montpelier VT 05601 and email us at news@vermontdailychronicle.com that a check is coming.
VDC readers who are not Sustaining Subscribers still have several outlets for expressing their opinions. VDC remains free to read to all subscribers, including those who subscribe with pseudonyms or anonymously, and on our Facebook and X pages. Commenting on all news and commentary is free on the VDC Facebook and X pages. Also, all readers using their full names are invited to submit letters to the editor and commentaries for consideration, at no cost.
If you have any questions, please email me at news@vermontdailychronicle.com. Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Guy Page, Publisher
Notice nobody is arguing what this person has proposed, but instead are attacking people for having different thoughts than what the narrative is pushing.
We don’t have all the facts.
We rush to judgement, knowing we couldn’t possibly be wrong.
The media never lies To us either, correct?
Covid?????
EB-5????
They want us fighting that is for sure, because when we are divided they are winning.
Show all videos from every angle and let the public decide. You can be sure this will never happen. Still waiting for more of the Epstein files. DRIP, DRIP, DRIP.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
In Iran, a legitimate protest is taking place against the Ayotollah One: they’re not being paid. Two: their signs are handmade. Three: no stores are being looted. Obviously they’re not like the George Soros sponsored rioters in America, and that includes Minneapolis and Vermont.
To all VDC commenters –
As stated since late 2025, in 2026 all commenters must be Sustaining Subscribers.
Most regular commenters already are Sustaining Subscribers. To you we say THANK YOU!, you are the reason why 2025 was another record year for views on http://www.vermontdailychronicle.com: 2.6 million. Again, thank you so much.
A Sustaining Subscriber is someone who from November 1 – January 1 made an annual contribution of $108, either by check or online, or who became an online $9/monthly contributor before January 1.
Also, since January 2025 we have been (albeit gradually) enforcing our policy of requiring full names for all commenters. The latter is meant to promote transparency and genuine discourse. The former is an economic decision intended to enhance the longterm sustainability of VDC.
Both of these policies will take full effect this coming week. As non-subscribers and commenters not using their full names (first initial, full last name not preferred but will be accepted) will not be permitted to comment, full stop. We have allowed a week or more in order to ensure that late arrivals of 2025 contributions and procrastinators are accounted for. This week, the online giving link will be updated for 2026, with $11/month and $132/year.
Please note: if you are not yet a Sustaining Subscriber, please subscribe immediately online. Or send a check to VDC, P.O. Box 1547, Montpelier VT 05601 and email us at news@vermontdailychronicle.com that a check is coming.
VDC readers who are not Sustaining Subscribers still have several outlets for expressing their opinions. VDC remains free to read to all subscribers, including those who subscribe with pseudonyms or anonymously, and on our Facebook and X pages. Commenting on all news and commentary is free on the VDC Facebook and X pages. Also, all readers using their full names are invited to submit letters to the editor and commentaries for consideration, at no cost.
If you have any questions, please email me at news@vermontdailychronicle.com. Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Guy Page, Publisher
Look at the latest footage from the officers cell phone on Not The Bee.
Dear VDC commenter –
As stated since late 2025, in 2026 all commenters must be Sustaining Subscribers.
Most regular commenters already are Sustaining Subscribers. To you we say THANK YOU!, you are the reason why 2025 was another record year for views on http://www.vermontdailychronicle.com: 2.6 million. Again, thank you so much.
A Sustaining Subscriber is someone who from November 1 – January 1 made an annual contribution of $108, either by check or online, or who became an online $9/monthly contributor before January 1.
Also, since January 2025 we have been (albeit gradually) enforcing our policy of requiring full names for all commenters. The latter is meant to promote transparency and genuine discourse. The former is an economic decision intended to enhance the longterm sustainability of VDC.
Both of these policies will take full effect this coming week. As non-subscribers and commenters not using their full names (first initial, full last name not preferred but will be accepted) will not be permitted to comment, full stop. We have allowed a week or more in order to ensure that late arrivals of 2025 contributions and procrastinators are accounted for. This week, the online giving link will be updated for 2026, with $11/month and $132/year.
Please note: if you are not yet a Sustaining Subscriber, please subscribe immediately online. Or send a check to VDC, P.O. Box 1547, Montpelier VT 05601 and email us at news@vermontdailychronicle.com that a check is coming.
VDC readers who are not Sustaining Subscribers still have several outlets for expressing their opinions. VDC remains free to read to all subscribers, including those who subscribe with pseudonyms or anonymously, and on our Facebook and X pages. Commenting on all news and commentary is free on the VDC Facebook and X pages. Also, all readers using their full names are invited to submit letters to the editor and commentaries for consideration, at no cost.
If you have any questions, please email me at news@vermontdailychronicle.com. Thank you for your attention to this matter,
Guy Page, Publisher