Hopscotch Cortazar
@koltraned.bsky.social
Public Defender; Union Member; George Saunders reader.
Just watched Terminator 2. We are all just Sarah Connor at this point.
January 19, 2026 at 11:25 PM
Just watched Terminator 2. We are all just Sarah Connor at this point.
T15 law school acceptance carrying a lot of weight here. But thems the perks of acing the LSAT.
January 14, 2026 at 6:49 PM
T15 law school acceptance carrying a lot of weight here. But thems the perks of acing the LSAT.
Tell me you haven’t spent much time in close proximity to these agents or understand their general response when you point a cell phone camera at them without using those words.
January 14, 2026 at 6:25 PM
Tell me you haven’t spent much time in close proximity to these agents or understand their general response when you point a cell phone camera at them without using those words.
Important outstanding question re: (1) was whether had a justification to initiate a stop/detainment based on 18 usc 111. Assuming blocking a road with a car amounts to force, it appears they would. Still doesn’t resolve whether agents decision to stand in front of car or shots 2/3 were w-in scope.
January 9, 2026 at 11:03 PM
Important outstanding question re: (1) was whether had a justification to initiate a stop/detainment based on 18 usc 111. Assuming blocking a road with a car amounts to force, it appears they would. Still doesn’t resolve whether agents decision to stand in front of car or shots 2/3 were w-in scope.
And here we have the limits of false narrative building: “agents are under attack!” Being overly-sensitive to the potential dangers of an automobile from past trauma counters an argument that he was acting as a “reasonable police officer” would in the same situation per the self defense standard.
January 9, 2026 at 3:59 PM
And here we have the limits of false narrative building: “agents are under attack!” Being overly-sensitive to the potential dangers of an automobile from past trauma counters an argument that he was acting as a “reasonable police officer” would in the same situation per the self defense standard.
As you (and they) know, 18usc111 has a force element of the offense so agents repeatedly try to instigate or manufacture an instance of use of force in response to citizens who are engaged in constitutionally protected activities. All while “the don’t tread on me right” demands blind compliance.
January 9, 2026 at 3:17 PM
As you (and they) know, 18usc111 has a force element of the offense so agents repeatedly try to instigate or manufacture an instance of use of force in response to citizens who are engaged in constitutionally protected activities. All while “the don’t tread on me right” demands blind compliance.
Thanks for following up on the case law.
January 8, 2026 at 5:55 PM
Thanks for following up on the case law.
My only concern was the limiting language of “For purposes of sections 626.84 to 626.863, the following terms have the meanings given:” preceding the definition of “peace officer.” But as you said rules of statutory interpretation and 626.77 give a good argument that ICE are federal law enforcement.
January 8, 2026 at 5:54 PM
My only concern was the limiting language of “For purposes of sections 626.84 to 626.863, the following terms have the meanings given:” preceding the definition of “peace officer.” But as you said rules of statutory interpretation and 626.77 give a good argument that ICE are federal law enforcement.
No one cares about the cost of living when roving bands of government paramilitary can execute you at will. Do something.
January 8, 2026 at 1:48 AM
No one cares about the cost of living when roving bands of government paramilitary can execute you at will. Do something.
How about a federal officer who has no actual authority to arrest you via a vehicle stop?
January 8, 2026 at 12:12 AM
How about a federal officer who has no actual authority to arrest you via a vehicle stop?
4. Under normal self defense law the CBP agent could not use force if he had a reasonable method of retreat to avoid danger, which he did and availed himself to, yet still fired his weapon repeatedly.
January 7, 2026 at 11:49 PM
4. Under normal self defense law the CBP agent could not use force if he had a reasonable method of retreat to avoid danger, which he did and availed himself to, yet still fired his weapon repeatedly.
3. As the CPB agent was not acting as a peace officer and didn’t have authority to actually effectuate an arrest under 626.77, approaching the car, surrounding the car, and drawing weapons made them the initial aggressors.
January 7, 2026 at 11:46 PM
3. As the CPB agent was not acting as a peace officer and didn’t have authority to actually effectuate an arrest under 626.77, approaching the car, surrounding the car, and drawing weapons made them the initial aggressors.
2. None of the conditions in 626.77(1)(1-4) were met here. Accordingly, the use of force for peace officer statute does not apply, but rather the regular affirmative defense of self defense outlined in MN law.
January 7, 2026 at 11:44 PM
2. None of the conditions in 626.77(1)(1-4) were met here. Accordingly, the use of force for peace officer statute does not apply, but rather the regular affirmative defense of self defense outlined in MN law.
Seems like you could use some help on your office: 1. 626.77 would suggest that CPB, as a division of DHS, would be considered “federal law enforcement officers”, listed separately from “peace officers” and do not have authority of “peace officers” unless certain conditions are met (626.77(1)(1-4).
January 7, 2026 at 11:42 PM
Seems like you could use some help on your office: 1. 626.77 would suggest that CPB, as a division of DHS, would be considered “federal law enforcement officers”, listed separately from “peace officers” and do not have authority of “peace officers” unless certain conditions are met (626.77(1)(1-4).
626.77 would suggest that CPB, as a division of DHS, would be considered “federal law enforcement officers”, listed separately from “peace officers” and who do not share in the authority of “peace officers” unless certain conditions are met (626.77(1)(1-4)).
But this is just quickly researched.
But this is just quickly researched.
January 7, 2026 at 10:15 PM
626.77 would suggest that CPB, as a division of DHS, would be considered “federal law enforcement officers”, listed separately from “peace officers” and who do not share in the authority of “peace officers” unless certain conditions are met (626.77(1)(1-4)).
But this is just quickly researched.
But this is just quickly researched.
State prosecutors remain on the case after removal.
January 7, 2026 at 10:00 PM
State prosecutors remain on the case after removal.
Feverishly researching if CBP agents are “peace officers” under MN law.
January 7, 2026 at 9:59 PM
Feverishly researching if CBP agents are “peace officers” under MN law.
I don’t. If anything MN state prosecutors will charge the agent.
January 7, 2026 at 9:18 PM
I don’t. If anything MN state prosecutors will charge the agent.
First shot self defense seems questionable based on the agent’s reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid danger. He easily avoided the danger of the car traveling toward him. Also, the initial decision to stand in front of the car itself seems to dispute a reasonable belief of imminent danger.
January 7, 2026 at 9:16 PM
First shot self defense seems questionable based on the agent’s reasonable possibility of retreat to avoid danger. He easily avoided the danger of the car traveling toward him. Also, the initial decision to stand in front of the car itself seems to dispute a reasonable belief of imminent danger.
No, it’s just the resolution of the state based murder claim will occur in federal court, presumably by a jury from that federal district.
January 7, 2026 at 7:20 PM
No, it’s just the resolution of the state based murder claim will occur in federal court, presumably by a jury from that federal district.
MN state law will substantively apply. Federal rules of crim pro and evidence control.
January 7, 2026 at 6:59 PM
MN state law will substantively apply. Federal rules of crim pro and evidence control.
Charges will be brought by MN prosecutor. CBP will remove to federal court, but state prosecutors stay on case as MN substantive law applies (609.066)
January 7, 2026 at 6:54 PM
Charges will be brought by MN prosecutor. CBP will remove to federal court, but state prosecutors stay on case as MN substantive law applies (609.066)
They will manufacture some “injuries.” But a federal jury (this case will be removed from MN court) isn’t going to buy that an agent demanding a car to leave who then stands in front of the car legitimately feared death or harm, otherwise he wouldn’t have stood there in the first place.
January 7, 2026 at 6:19 PM
They will manufacture some “injuries.” But a federal jury (this case will be removed from MN court) isn’t going to buy that an agent demanding a car to leave who then stands in front of the car legitimately feared death or harm, otherwise he wouldn’t have stood there in the first place.
Good luck establishing you were protecting yourself from death or great bodily harm when you easily sidestep the front of the car as it drives at about 5mph in response to your commands to leave.
January 7, 2026 at 6:07 PM
Good luck establishing you were protecting yourself from death or great bodily harm when you easily sidestep the front of the car as it drives at about 5mph in response to your commands to leave.
Why repeat CPB propaganda? There’s several live accounts from witnesses.
January 7, 2026 at 5:49 PM
Why repeat CPB propaganda? There’s several live accounts from witnesses.