I assume the Renée Good shooting, which was three times.
Interesting the conflicting orders she received were not "lawful".
Her vehicle was across a single lane, prior to the shooting incident vehicles were freely passing, so traffic was not blocked by a common occurrence of a vehicle across a single lane of an icy road.
She was not stopping ICE or DHS from apprehending an immigrant, and the Federal Immigration agents had no authority to deal with traffic matters in MN.
All three of the things said don't accurately describe the Good incident (she was not shot five times; "not resisting" is not applicable if you imagine e.g. physically trying to prevent the application of handcuffs and clearly untrue if you take it to include fleeing; and the "federal investigation failing to bring charges" doesn't exist) so I assumed it wasn't that case. But I'll respond to your analysis of that case anyway:
> the conflicting orders she received were not "lawful".
They do not become "not lawful" at your say-so. And she was not "given conflicting orders". That is a propaganda narrative ignorant of basic law. Good was repeatedly told to move (in the initial encounter with Ross, before he begins circling the car, repeatedly refused, then significant time passed. Then she was told to get out of the car, presumably because she was under arrest for refusing to move.
It is the same as how an ordinary local police officer who tells you to leave a property because you're trespassing, is entitled to arrest you (which entails you not leaving) if you repeatedly refuse to leave.
> Her vehicle was across a single lane
It was perpendicular to the road, and parked. That's obstruction. The fact that cars could get around does not mean they "were freely passing". And as you point out, the road was icy; that makes this situation more dangerous, and the blocked lane a more serious obstruction.
> She was not stopping ICE or DHS from apprehending an immigrant
She was significantly impeding them, in a manner that can very easily be argued to meet the necessary standards in the relevant legal code.
> and the Federal Immigration agents had no authority to deal with traffic matters in MN.
8 USC 1357 makes it clear that they can make arrests for federal crimes committed in their presence. This includes obstructing them, which is by definition done in their presence and is a federal crime by virtue of the fact that they are federal officers. And as LEO they can generally issue lawful orders. The fact that she's in a car doesn't somehow deny them jurisdiction. They aren't "dealing with traffic matters"; they're dealing with obstruction of justice.
I assume the Renée Good shooting, which was three times.
Interesting the conflicting orders she received were not "lawful".
Her vehicle was across a single lane, prior to the shooting incident vehicles were freely passing, so traffic was not blocked by a common occurrence of a vehicle across a single lane of an icy road.
She was not stopping ICE or DHS from apprehending an immigrant, and the Federal Immigration agents had no authority to deal with traffic matters in MN.
All three of the things said don't accurately describe the Good incident (she was not shot five times; "not resisting" is not applicable if you imagine e.g. physically trying to prevent the application of handcuffs and clearly untrue if you take it to include fleeing; and the "federal investigation failing to bring charges" doesn't exist) so I assumed it wasn't that case. But I'll respond to your analysis of that case anyway:
> the conflicting orders she received were not "lawful".
They do not become "not lawful" at your say-so. And she was not "given conflicting orders". That is a propaganda narrative ignorant of basic law. Good was repeatedly told to move (in the initial encounter with Ross, before he begins circling the car, repeatedly refused, then significant time passed. Then she was told to get out of the car, presumably because she was under arrest for refusing to move.
It is the same as how an ordinary local police officer who tells you to leave a property because you're trespassing, is entitled to arrest you (which entails you not leaving) if you repeatedly refuse to leave.
> Her vehicle was across a single lane
It was perpendicular to the road, and parked. That's obstruction. The fact that cars could get around does not mean they "were freely passing". And as you point out, the road was icy; that makes this situation more dangerous, and the blocked lane a more serious obstruction.
> She was not stopping ICE or DHS from apprehending an immigrant
She was significantly impeding them, in a manner that can very easily be argued to meet the necessary standards in the relevant legal code.
> and the Federal Immigration agents had no authority to deal with traffic matters in MN.
8 USC 1357 makes it clear that they can make arrests for federal crimes committed in their presence. This includes obstructing them, which is by definition done in their presence and is a federal crime by virtue of the fact that they are federal officers. And as LEO they can generally issue lawful orders. The fact that she's in a car doesn't somehow deny them jurisdiction. They aren't "dealing with traffic matters"; they're dealing with obstruction of justice.