The title of this post is misleading: should be something like "Investigation of a potential crime committed by a Federal Officer is done by federal agencies first. Other (state, local, etc.) agencies may investigate later."
The implication of the original title is that no investigation whatsoever is possible if a federal officer commits a potential crime. That is clearly false.
The law simply provides a time priority for investigations, something much=needed especially when the various agencies involved have competing (and, in this case, political) goals in their investigations.
> The implication of the original title is that no investigation whatsoever is possible if a federal officer commits a potential crime. That is clearly false.
No, the implication is that local and state level officers like Chief Mike Witz think investigating will be useless (e.g. they won't be able to gather enough evidence for a charge) or aren't aware that they have the legal room to investigate federal officers to the same extent that they can investigate regular civilians (e.g. misunderstanding of the Supremacy Clause).
> The title of this post is misleading: should be something like "Investigation of a potential crime committed by a Federal Officer is done by federal agencies first. Other (state, local, etc.) agencies may investigate later."
[...]
> The law simply provides a time priority for investigations
The post title is the same as the article title. The body of the article does not say anything similar to your suggested alternate title! (which suggests to me that your comment is in bad faith.) Can you provide evidence that your suggested article title describes a normal or expected practice (whether de jure or de facto)?
This article is not about state/local investigations that get postponed or delayed. This article is about state/local investigations that never happen, for the wrong reasons. This article is not about which laws, if any, actually mandate postponement of or prohibit state/local investigations of federal officers. The article describes how reasons other than the laws themselves make local/state investigations of federal officers rare, such as interference from the federal government and inaccurate beliefs that the laws themselves prohibit such investigations. I'm not aware of a law that "simply" stops state and local governments from unilaterally performing an investigation of a federal officer at the same time as the federal government does (or pretends to do so). Are you saying that some law overrides the judicial warrant described in the following excerpt?
> Even after getting a judicial warrant, investigators from the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension were turned away by federal agents from the Minneapolis intersection where Pretti, 37, was shot and killed. Federal officials also excluded the BCA from the investigation into the death of Renee Good, who was shot and killed in her car two weeks before Pretti.
Can I buy one for a belt? I'm periodically needing to add another notch to my belts and this seems a good replacement! Maybe another few colors, please?
I've got a belt like this [1] which works great. It is a braided belt and the prong on the buckle simply goes through the braiding so you in effect can have a hole wherever you want one.
I often adjust it depending on what I'm doing and after a few years I've not noticed in damage or degradation from sticking the prong through the braid.
That one reminds me of the NATO straps popular in combination with Casio watches, I used to have that.
But for a belt, I also have (used to have?) a canvas belt with a buckle that would pinch the belt instead of go through it. Two actually, the one had two D-rings, the other had a more involved system with a bar going through a slotted box of sorts.
"As of the 2021 Census, approximately 15.0% of all occupied private dwellings in Canada were condominiums, up from 13.3% in 2016, with the vast majority located in major metropolitan areas. In primary downtown areas, the concentration of condominiums is significantly higher, with roughly 39.9% of homes being classified as condominiums..."
The HOA would merely assume control of your unit and sell it to someone else (even at a loss) who could follow the rules.
But the parent post is an example of the human detritus that floats ashore when condos sell: idiots with no concept of ownership, the law or cooperative behavior. Put a bunch of them together in an HOA and you get a real view of why pure democracy is such a PITA.
HOAs are a legal framework designed for condominium (and other) domains where some parts of the property are owned in common. Without HOAs, I fail to see how condominiums could thrive. And condominium domains are everywhere! So there is no possibility whatsoever of them being eliminated in our current legal system.
The problem in this instance was that running a generator creates fire and/or electrical hazards. Those dangers are mitigated by the condominium domain's insurance. The insurers may not provide coverage if a single owner violates the policy. Two examples:
a) Snow is falling, accumulating and melting on an area which the generator wires are laid. One side of the circuit wiring is bare and a tenant, while holding onto a (grounded) steel banister, steps into a puddle of water that the generator wire crosses. No one else is present: the tenant is electrocuted and his semi-frozen body found half a day later, still leaning on the banister. Who is liable?
b) The generator malfunctions and catches fire. B/c it is inside a back porch area, the fire spreads quickly to the condominium unit and thence to surrounding units. Due to a higher than normal volume of calls and the icy roads being difficult to navigate, the fire department is slow to respond. Once they do respond, they find some water supply lines are frozen, further slowing them in their attempts to contain the fire and requiring extra units to be fielded, even further increasing their response time. Who is liable?
In both cases the legal liability probably lies with the condominium unit owner who runs the generator. If the HOA fails to notify the unit owner or fails to takes steps to shut the generator down, the legal liability may include the HOA.
Not surprisingly, very few people buy additional insurance that covers them when they make mistakes (a so-called "umbrella policy" does this sometimes, among other things) in judgement as happened here. Normally one would install such a generator ahead of time and provisions for safety as well as responsibility and liability insurance would be made well ahead of time.
The correct (and IMO easier) thing for the woman to do would have been to move to a hotel/motel/warming center/etc. After all, she had the wherewithal to procure and install a generator on her porch, a task that surely took hours or days to complete.
In sum, this is simply another condo owner sob-story. Condo buyers sign a legal agreement and, as soon as they break that agreement and are notified by the HOA, they cry to the media.
Having once been president of an HOA in a condominium, my own ideas, which include public hangings by edict as punishment for HOA agreement violations, might seem archaic, but they would do a lot to tame the madness of condo owners and calm the economic path of most HOAs.
An excellent video, even the additional ending, which he worried about posting and so added a "fake ending". Just keep listening to it for another view of our current State of the Union from a midwesterner's perspective.
As someone whose mother died to pancan, I could really care less on any of the brainwashed old farts in their churches or parliaments.
None of that matters to me or the people suffering from cancers, it’s al Knut a selfish obstruction attaching religion to the research material
More likely he was curious and didn't understand the vitriolic nature of the interactions. Kinda like a drunken Irishman stumbling into a bar fight in Istanbul.
FWIW ICE agents will probably face charges for what happened to Pretti, so cool off on that.
I don't think criticizing anyone for what they did before/after a particular event that they were not a party to is justifiable. Let's give everyone, including Cook, the right to free choice in use of their own time.
You record video of them as they perform a gangland execution on an American citizen lawfully exercising his second amendment right to carry a firearm. This rises to the level of assault in the dogma of the "MAGA" cult.
Honestly, I'm still amazed at how fast they've speedrun openly rejecting what used to be a core conservative position.
The implication of the original title is that no investigation whatsoever is possible if a federal officer commits a potential crime. That is clearly false.
The law simply provides a time priority for investigations, something much=needed especially when the various agencies involved have competing (and, in this case, political) goals in their investigations.
reply