If you want to know exactly how the Renee Good murder went down:

Renee Good Shooting: Three Shots, One Timeline: A Preliminary Forensic Video Breakdown
A Deeper Look Visual Investigation
by Michael D. Sellers

I have watched that video many times and that was a murder. No officer was injured and no officer was under threat. This woman was simply trying to drive around a car blocking the street. That "officer" needs to be jailed and charged with murder. No amount of spin can make this into anything but a cold blooded murder!

Here is a video that clearly shows the agent being hit by the woman. She got what she deserved...

twitter

[✘]

If you want to know exactly how the Renee Good murder went down:

Do people have any obligation to obey law enforcement?

There are many leftists that have told the crazies on the left to resist law enforcement. These leftists send out their lemmings to do their dirty work, making them pay for the violence they commit.

These leftists, especially the politicians, need to go to prison for inciting violence.

Do people have any obligation to obey law enforcement?

Sure, but the orders must be lawful, and they also must be clear. If it’s obviously not lawful, it’s not reasonable to expect instant compliance. Additionally, a lot of times with these ICE agents, you’ve multiple agents giving conflicting orders. One guy is shouting “freeze,” while another shouts “get out of the car,” and a third is telling someone to leave. So, the citizen trying to comply, ends up ignoring the order of one or more agents and gets attacked or shot.

Sure, but the orders must be lawful,

How exactly is someone going to determine if an order is "Lawful", have your attorney follow you 24/7, keep him on the phone when you are protesting police actions, facetime, how??????

Yeah, it’s difficult. As a general rule of thumb, you can attempt to clarify with the officer that if you do not comply, he will arrest you. At which point, you comply out of prudence. Arguing the matter is something that is usually best done in court, but sometimes, standing up for your rights can work in the field. Unfortunately, we are now working with a group of government agents who seem to be looking for the slightest provocation to hurt someone, instead of de-escalating.

Critically, absent some obvious imminent threat, “failure to follow an order” is never justification for shooting someone.

Nothing Good did could possibly be construed as deserving lethal gunfire.

It's murder. 

End of story. 

Critically, absent some obvious imminent threat, “failure to follow an order” is never justification for shooting someone.

She had just dropped off her 6 year old son at school.   Then she was murdered by ICE.

Yeah, she was a domestic terrorist.  

This fucking administration is beyond corrupt and beyond despicable.

... and NT's MAGAs are proud to defend Good's murder.

They're in their deity's image: utterly shameless. 

It is sickening.

Tell us, what crime was committed that has a sentence of death? We'll wait. 

It is sickening.

She was murdered. 

Legally this is most likely manslaughter.

She certainly was unnecessarily killed.

And it is sickening that some pretend otherwise no matter how obvious the evidence merely due to blind ideology.

As more and more information like this comes out, it is clear that there is no excuse for the second two shots. I dont think there is an excuse for the first shot but to be fair that is slightly debatable, based on his alleged fear for his life.  As I said in a comment yesterday, a child could have gotten out the way of that car when it started to move, but evidently this highly trained ICE cop could not. 

twitter

there is no excuse for the second two shots

Had she obeyed the officer there would have been no shots.

Had she obeyed the officer there would have been no shots.

Exactly

Had she obeyed the officer there would have been no shots.

Obeyed which officer? It appears agents are simultaneously telling her to leave, freeze, and get out of the car.

telling her to leave

Please provide a time stamp when an officer told her to "leave".

Is there a time stamp for orders that she was supposed to follow?

Do you think they were approaching her because they wanted her to stay where she was? Why would they want that? She’s a citizen. She wasn’t a person within their jurisdiction or mission. What is the justification for contacting her then?

She wasn’t a person within their jurisdiction or mission

I don't think you know all the circumstances. You make it sound like she was just driving down the street minding her own business. 

I don't think you know all the circumstances.

Well, nobody does, do they? That’s why an independent investigation should be conducted.

You make it sound like she was just driving down the street minding her own business. 

She might very well have been. She does apparently live in the neighborhood. I don’t know what business she was minding, but our DHS Secretary tried to paint her as some organized domestic terrorist. From what little we do know, I would say that’s bullshit.

Reporting is that she had just dropped off her 6 year old at school and was on her way home when she encountered the ICE agents. Some terrorist!

Yes, because everyone on their way home blocks ICE agent vehicles from proceeding. s/
Must be a Minnesota thing.

Can you see there are cars on either side of her? And we don’t know who belongs to those cars or how they got there. You don’t even know if she’s trying to block the road. She could be trying to go around the situation or turning into her driveway, for all you know.

There was a woman interviewed that stated she was the leader of the cars that was blocking ICE from getting through.

Is that witness lying?

The "reporting" does say that she dropped off a child and her wife was with her, but when they came across the ICE vehicles her wife exited the vehicle to get video as Renee positions the vehicle across the road.  So were they there to confront ICE for video?  According to Rebecca, the wife, she is taking the blame for Renee's death for making Renee drive there.

You know it’s not a crime to record law enforcement, right?

There was a woman interviewed that stated she was the leader

Leader? Do you imagine she had advanced knowledge of where ICE would be?

of the cars that was blocking ICE from getting through.

Yes, that sounds like something a person should be shot for. /s How about go around? There appears to be room.

Is that witness lying?

I have no idea, but you believe it without question because you want to make it ok to shoot someone for blocking the road.

You know for an allegedly scary terrorist woman intent on blocking the road, she seemed eager enough to drive away from the guys in masks. I guess that doesn’t factor into your consideration of events, huh?

They were there to bear witness to ICE behavior. A perfectly legal activity. 

Do you support the murder of this woman for starting to drive her car away from the scene?

Do you actually blame this woman rather than the murderer who killed her at point-blank range?

If this was your daughter, wife, etc. would you be arguing that her death was her fault?

There was a woman interviewed that stated she was the leader of the cars that was blocking ICE from getting through.

I read or heard that somewhere as well, but it most certainly does not change the Fact, that her death as a result of point blank execution could have been avoided. From what i've heard and read, the officer should not have been in front of her vehicle, they are supposed to be trained and know this. I think they knew her and were pissed cause she had possibly been interacting with the agents prior, and anger possibly got the best of them, as the guy trying to open her door acted pissed, the one drawing a gun, instead of stepping timely to the side out of her path, obviously was. 

  As i stated earlier, i see it as a bad shoot, but there is enough evidence to claim he was fearing for his own and the lives of his other agents on the scene. 

  Shooting someone is supposed to be a last resort, that obviously was not the case here.

She wasn’t a person within their jurisdiction or mission.

If your interfering with Federal Agents trying to do their job you have put yourself in their jurisdiction.  

Do you support the murder of this woman for starting to drive her car away from the scene?

Couple of things, she drove toward an officer after she was ordered out of the car, she struck the officer, six months earlier this same officer was hit and dragged by a vehicle disobeying an order. Did you have the same concern for Ashley Babbit who was not driving a car at an officer, never posed a threat to the officer whatsoever and was shot without warning.   

If this was your daughter, wife,

They would never put themselves in this position, if an officer would give them a command, they would follow it.  A majority, if not all of these shooting would be avoided is people would obey a command by an officer.  

Couple of things, she drove toward an officer after she was ordered out of the car,

She drove towards the road.   She was NOT trying to hit an officer with her car. 

... six months earlier this same officer was hit and dragged by a vehicle disobeying an order

Which suggests that his over-the-top use of lethal force was irrational based on prior encounters.

Did you have the same concern for Ashley Babbit ...

Always with the deflection.   Focus.

They would never put themselves in this position, ...

Of course, deflect.

interfering with Federal Agents trying to do their job

That’s a little tough to argue about a woman sitting in her car in the public road.

She drove towards the road.

She was perpendicular "IN" the road

 She was NOT trying to hit an officer with her car.

How do you know this?

Always with the deflection.

Funny when comparisons are brought up its, always a deflection.

Of course, deflect.

Explain the "Deflect" when the question is answered directly?

sitting in her car in the public road

Are you saying that anyone sitting on a public road, can't interfere with a Federal Agent, wow didn't know that, what statute says that.   

You yet again offer nothing.   

Just incredible watching people like you trying to defend this corrupt administration and flat out denying what happened as shown clearly on many video shots and images.

The killer was unharmed.   He never should have shot at a moving vehicle.   He chose to kill a woman point-blank who was just starting to move her vehicle onto the road.

And you try defend this senseless killing of a citizen!!

If this was your wife or daughter, you would not be parroting the Trump administration.

denying what happened

She was told to stop and get out of her car, she did not, she drove forward and hit an officer, tell me what part of that is not true.

this senseless 

I agree, she should have never put herself in that position to begin with. 

This ICE officer killed a woman.   Do you not even care?   Where is the sense of human decency?   Is partisan politics so important that people like you will deny the obvious to defend a corrupt administration?

Just do not understand this insanity.

The agent was clearly not in fear of imminent death, and that is the only exception to the rule of 'do not fire on a moving vehicle'.   If he thought so, he could have simply stepped further away from the vehicle.

Instead, he used his time to pull his firearm, ready his position, fire into the corner of the windshield, reposition and then fire into the driver's window.

He chose to kill this woman rather than follow protocol and step aside.   He was not in imminent danger of death as evidenced by the indisputable fact that he had time to kill this woman and that afterwards, he walked down to inspect his kill and then walk back.   Obviously unharmed.

The corrupt Trump administration is spreading outrageous propaganda, and this is being parroted by 'useful' people.

You haven't told me which part was untrue. 

Do you not even care? 

You need to look at yourself in the mirror, you justified an officer killing someone for no reason,  so don't try and shame me!

he agent was clearly not in fear of imminent death, and that is the only exception to the rule of 'do not fire on a moving vehicle'

Lol.  Officers have ESP and see the world in slow motion and can move faster than cars. They know exactly what laughing ladies accelerating  towards them are thinking and know that the laughing lady would certainly never, ever turn into him if he moved.  Because no one ever does that. 

Is the driver who hit the agent with a moving vehicle deserve any blame at all in your world? Did she do anything wrong at all? 

I cant figure out why you think that video exonerates the cop? 

Are you saying that anyone sitting on a public road, can't interfere with a Federal Agent, wow didn't know that, what statute says that.   

First of all, I didn’t say any of that. Second, where is the evidence she was interfering with a federal agent? Her one car is not blocking the entire road. There was plenty of room to drive around her. What mission would the agent be performing in the street anyway? Word from ICE is they were going “door to door.” There are no doors in the street.

Third, we now have video shot from the perspective of one of the agents. That agent walks around the vehicle, recording the scene, but at no point complains about her presence, tries to get her to leave, exit the vehicle, or do anything in particular.

... you justified an officer killing someone for no reason

WTF are you talking about?   I never said that Babbitt deserved to die.   Cease posting lies.

In Babbitt's case, the officer should have fired a warning shot.   That has been my position.   

In this case, the agent should have used his time to ensure he was comfortably clear of the car and followed normal protocol.

He did not.   He unnecessarily killed a 37 year old mother.

From your avoidance of my question, I think it is obvious that if this were your wife or child that you would NOT consider the agent's actions justified.

Officers have ESP and see the world in slow motion and can move faster than cars.

The car had just started to move and the street was wide open with plenty of room for agents to move about.   This is not a car barreling down an alleyway with no way for the agent to go to avoid being run over.

The agent was unharmed even though he used his available time to pull his weapon, ready his aim, fire, reposition, and fire again through the drivers window rather than use all of that time to simply make a step and ensure he was clear of her path.     And even with all of that, he still was clear of her path and was unharmed.

Obviously, he was not in danger for his life.

Agents are not supposed to fire on cars anyway.

This agent unnecessarily killed a woman, a citizen, a mother, a wife, and a daughter.  Does this not matter to Trump supporters?

If you believe a car that is just starting to move might clip you, do you take a step to ensure you are clear of the path or do you take more time and kill the driver?

did the driver do anything wrong?

Of course, she should have sat there waiting for clear instructions instead of trying to leave the scene.   Especially now since we can see that these ICE agents can be deadly.

Did the agent do anything wrong?

You know, like, maybe, did he kill someone unnecessarily?

If you believe a car that is just starting to move might clip you, do you take a step to ensure you are clear of the path or do you take more time and kill the driver?

he should have sat there waiting for clear instructions instead of trying to leave the scene

She was given veery clear instructions.  Instead she  drove her suC at the officer standing in front of her.

You know, like, maybe, did he kill someone unnecessarily?

No I think he acted reasonably under the circumstances.   I don't believe LEO's are superhuman beings with extra sensory perception. Cops get killed in these situations frequently.  When someone drives a car at you (and it hits you), it's reasonable to assume you  are in danger.  That's common sense.  

Always enjoy people second guessing how they should act when making a split second  decision with their life on the line.  

No I think he acted reasonably under the circumstances. 

You are denying reality.   Just sickening.

He shot her twice from the drivers side window.  Yeah it all happened fast, but his job is to know when to stop. 

I said to you yesterday a normal person would have been happy they didnt get hit, his reaction was to kill her.  The woman was turning the wheels away from him from the gitgo. To say she went right at him is a total lie. 

When someone drives a car at you (and it hits you), it's reasonable to assume you  are in danger. 

Except when its not. 

You are denying reality.   Just sickening.

Lol. This is just another in the long line of reality denying gaslighting from the left.  It really became noticeable with the Covington video where  progressives would straight up lie about what  the video shows. Same with Biden's senility. Just deny the video. Just ideology over reality. I've given up on reasoning with people, it's just interesting to see how far they'll.

For the sane people out there. SHE HIT A LEO WITH HER CAR after  disobeying orders from agents.  To argue that doesn't create the risk of serious injury to the Officer makes insane too feeble a word to use.   If this were a Trump supporter interfering with police who was shot by a cop  no progressive would think twice about supporting the Cop. Not for a single second.

Yeah it all happened fast, but his job is to know when to stop. 

His job is to put an end to the threat. As the Supreme court has made clear, if the first shot was good, so were the rest fired in rapid succession. They don't have to pause and see what happens after each shot.  

aid to you yesterday a normal person would have been happy they didnt get hit,

He got hit. It's not disputable.  Just because he didn't get killed doesn't make it okay. 

The woman was turning the wheels away from him from the gitgo

No they weren't. And why do you think he was looking at the tires anyway?

Except when its not.

Perfect. We've reached the absurd position where progressives arguing getting hit by a car is not dangerous. Perfect/ 

It seems the cop thought he should be filming her through the windshield - what was that all about?  As I said yesterday, there is a video from the opposite side of the street that shows him stepping in front of the car after the car was moving.  The idea that he was 'hit' by this car is ridiculous. The idea that she drove right toward him is ridiculous. The cop was completely irresponsible. There is not one instant of her going forward where she was not turning the wheels to the right. 

Whatever case he had for saying he shot out of fear goes away with shot number two and three. 

Just sickening watching people stoop to such blatant propaganda and intellectual dishonesty. 

The videos show what happened.   Your pathetic denials are not going to change reality.

The idea that he was 'hit' by this car is ridiculous

Not as ridiculous as suggesting he stepped in front of a moving vehicle. 

And why do you think he was looking at the tires anyway?

More likely he heard the tires spinning on ice and had no idea where she was driving 

He shot her while the car was going AWAY from him.  What threat was that? By the way the car was going away from him because she turned the wheels before getting shot. 

Show us anything that shows he was "hit" by this car other than the blurry video ,shot from much further down the street, where he appears to have been grazed. 

Do you seriously believe this man didnt know that he was outside the danger zone of being dragged under the car?  He didnt get hurt. He didnt fall down , he didnt even lose his balance, we can know that because a half second later he was upright shooting at her through the drivers window. 

You can gaslight all you want, I am past giving a shit. 

If you believe a car that is just starting to move might clip you, do you take a step to ensure you are clear of the path or do you take more time and kill the driver?

This is nothing new, TiG. 

The video that Dig posted last night shows , pretty clearly, that the car was in motion (in reverse) before he stepped in front of it.  I find this very relevant. Unless he is a total moron he chose to step in front of a car that was about to pull out of its spot.  I think the cell phone is key to this part of it. It seems he wanted to get a picture of her face, maybe to put on social media. 

I am past giving a shit.

That's long overdue. 

I find this very relevant. Unless he is a total moron he chose to step in front of a car that was about to pull out of its spot

so cool the left is now arguing that when they protest and block traffic you can just run them over, because if they don’t avoid the car it’s their fault.  Only total morons get hit by cars. It’s so easy to avoid them. A split second is plenty of time to make all sorts of observations act in the most optimal way.

This will probably lead to a new defense for the charlotte train stabber. It’s the stabbing victim’s fault if they  don’t avoid the knife aimed at them, That dumb girl on the train should have looked to see which which way  the guy was stabbing her from and simply avoided it. Can’t blame the stabber for  the Victim not taking proper progressive approved  evasive actions. 

why did he step in front of the car after it was moving ?  Why was he videoing her with his camera from directly in front of the car.  The driver was in the car, the motor was running, and she had backed up to create the room for the arc to clear the car that was directly to her right. She was going to pull out. As stupid as the cop was though, it all comes down to whether he reasonably thought she was going to run him over.  That could explain the first shot but cannot explain the other two. 

John - a bullet hole through the driver's side lower front windshield and one through the driver's side window - clean shots - on various videos.

If you believe a car that is just starting to move might clip you, do you take a step to ensure you are clear of the path or do you take more time and kill the driver?

Just so we’re clear, you believe it’s the responsibility of protesters who step in front of cars to avoid being hit and if they are hit, it’s solely the pedestrians fault. Going to make protest season pretty exciting.

why did he step in front of the car after it was moving

He was in front of the car before it started moving. Watch the video.

SHE HIT A LEO WITH HER CAR

The video proves otherwise. SORRY!

She had already gone a few feet in reverse before he stepped in front of the car. Why does someone back up first in that sort of situation? To create room for a wider arc around the car next to her.  Her backing up a little was the signal she was about to go forward. 

You still havent explained why he positioned himself in front of the car at all. LEO after LEO has said since that you dont stand in front of a car that has someone in the drivers seat. 

As for the video released yesterday, it does NOT prove the cop was hit by her car. It proves that he fumbled his phone.  At best, there is one video taken from a good distance away that appears to show him being grazed by the car. Other videos from other angles seem to show him not being hit at all. In any case he didnt fall, or even lose his balance. He wasnt hurt, he was trigger happy. 

And you're still getting your story wrong.

If you believe a car that is just starting to move might clip you, do you take a step to ensure you are clear of the path or do you take more time and kill the driver?

Why do you refuse to answer this probative question?   This goes to the heart of the matter in terms of the justification for using lethal force.   

There is no universal training standard for law enforcement. But most police departments and federal guidance bar shooting at a moving vehicle unless the driver poses an imminent threat of deadly force beyond the car itself .

Why are shootings at vehicles restricted?

Experts say firing at a moving car is one of the riskiest forms of lethal force, increasing the chance of stray gunfire or a loss of vehicle control that can endanger bystanders.

Are officers expected to move out of the way?

Yes . Justice Department policy says deadly force is allowed only when no reasonable alternative exists, including stepping out of the vehicle’s path.

Can officers use deadly force just to stop or arrest someone?

No . Policies generally state officers cannot use deadly force solely to arrest someone or to disable a fleeing vehicle if the person does not pose an immediate threat.

Do federal immigration agents follow different rules?

Not fundamentally. ICE and other federal officers operate under similar Justice Department guidance limiting gunfire at vehicles , although federal agents have added legal protections when acting within their official duties

What is ICE’s policy?

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, allows deadly force only when an officer reasonably believes someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury .

apnews

"Trump has gone completely mad."

Duh. 

Bad judgement, like shit, runs downhill with this administration.

Ashleigh Babbit !!!!

The same people who decried Babbitt's death at the hands of Capitol Police as cold blooded murder, for refusing to obey orders while climbing through the broken windows of locked and

barricaded doors, after trespassing pretty deep in the Capitol building itself, now bend over backwards to justify this murder as "deserved"?

Talk about double standards and confirmation bias. ...

The hypocrisy is despicable. 

Watch the bodycam footage. Many progressives, if they were honest, would apologize for the lies they’ve been pushing.  They of course, won’t.

instead they’ll stop discussing the story over the next day but then bring it up in drive byes for years and run away when pressed for evidence. 
 
Cameras  and independent media destroy the lies pushed by the left wing yet again.

here is the body cam footage-

(7) Carl Higbie on X: "And just like that… officer is proven innocent. https://t.co/pOr8xyfDM4" / X

The only thing that proves as far as I can see is that he dropped his camera.

The man did not fall to the ground, did not lose balance, and suffered no injuries. 

How do YOU explain the two shots through the driver side window?

The right will jump on the video because the driver and her friend were shown to be a little smart mouthed with the cop.  Completely irrelevant. 

Did you notice this part of the video? It clearly shows the woman turning the steering wheel to the right, away from the cop.  YOUR president and DHS head both said she deliberately "ran him over". 

The second and third shot would doom this guy in a fair trial, which will never see the light of day. 

By the way, after he shot her in the head three times you can hear him say "fucking bitch" as the car goes down the street. 

Just incredible.   What do you think this body cam shows?   We know where the guy was positioned, we know he jerked around and fired his weapon.   We know he was still firmly standing on his feet when he fired through the windshield and again through the driver's window.   We know he walked around with no apparent injury.

We know that he should not have fired on a moving car, no matter what.

We have seen this on many videos and images from various angles.

WTF drives people like you to try to support the blatantly false propaganda of this corrupt administration?

If you take this bodycam video in totality it seems to show a cop who was angry, one of the women was mocking him pretty enthusiastically, and even the driver talks to him with a sarcastic tone. I think this may explain why he stood in front of the car. He was pissed.  The body cam does not show him being hit, because he wasnt, but it does get herky jerky in the split second before the shooting.  I dont think this video  proves anything other than that they had had a verbal confrontation, if you want to call it that, about ten seconds before the shooting.  And that he says "fucking bitch" as her dead body is rolling down the street. 

Many progressives, if they were honest, would apologize for the lies they’ve been pushing

Religious zealots don't apologize, they escalate.

They also don't entertain any idea that isn't orthodoxy. 

Once a person has allowed themselves to be whipped into a fever of irrational hysteria, they cease to be able to even consider the idea that the thing driving their hysteria may be inaccurate.

The sad reality is that both the driver and the officer should have behaved differently, and that a long series of judgment errors escalated to a tragic fatality. 

Reasonable people will understand that we have a small window into the situation with very few details, in the prudent act would be to refrain from making a rash judgment.  The incident will surely be investigated, further details will undoubtedly emerge, and we will all have a much clearer picture of what actually happened. 

But zealots are not reasonable.  They will rush to declararations that align with their predetermined views,  and no amount of facts will dissuade them from either the certainty of their belief or the confidence of their own self-righteousness.

Do you see anything in this bodycam video that shows progressives should be apologizing?  If anything it shows she was turning away from him not trying to run him down.  It also shows he was probably angry because they were teasing him. Then he (or possibly one of the other ICE) says "fucking bitch" after she was shot multiple times in the head. 

Of course Trump and Vance and Noem will hold this nonsense up as proof of the cops innocence. 

Under no circumstances in this scenario should that agent shoot this woman for starting to leave the scene.   The normal procedure is to pursue and stop the vehicle.   ICE (and police in general) do not shoot at moving vehicles.

The exception is imminent threat of death.   Given this agent willingly pulled his firearm and aimed and shot this woman, and then shot her again through the driver’s window, all while holding his cell phone, and still was unharmed shows that he was under no threat of imminent death.

He should have stepped aside (if necessary) and allowed her to leave the scene.   If there was a need to stop her, they should have followed protocol.

Real simple:   rather than take the time to pull your handgun, secure your stance, fire, move aside, fire through the driver's window, just do this:   take that time to simply step aside.

I think the personality of the cop may be the key to what happened. 

Possibly, but I know there will be rogue agents just as their are rogue cops.   There will always be bad apples.   

What bothers me (and should bother everyone) is that this corrupt administration is engaging in blatant / absurd levels of propaganda.   And, worse, even in this tragic and senseless killing of a citizen, Trump supporters are blindly repeating this sick bullshit.

of course

The incident will surely be investigated, further details will undoubtedly emerge, and we will all have a much clearer picture of what actually happened. 

I agree with everything you said.  One thing that may not emerge is the impact politicians had on this tragedy.  Promoting more than peaceful protest by their words and actions( not arresting  and charging those  that go beyond peaceful protest) can embolden people to do things they ordinarily would not. 

There is enough information out there for people to believe whatever they want to believe, including what she and he were thinking at the time of the incident. But lets face it I believe I have not seen a politician actually say we should wait for the facts, every one of them has already made up their mind and instead of trying to slow the simmer they have all turned up the heat more.  And their minions just follow along.

The reason Renee Good and people like her are getting involved is because ICE is on residential streets harassing people and disrupting the peace of the community. People dont like that. I dont understand what part of that the right doesnt get. 

What's the reason that ICE are on residential streets again?

Do you think people are going to stop being agitated by the presence of camouflaged uniform masked agents on their neighborhood streets?  The only direction all this can go is WORSE.

They need a new plan and system for finding the deportables.  And forget about deporting all of them, it will never happen. 

But lets face it I believe I have not seen a politician actually say we should wait for the facts ...

This is on video.   What facts are you waiting for?

The agent was clearly not in fear of imminent death and that is the only exception to the rule of 'do not fire on a moving vehicle'.   If he thought so, he could have simply stepped further away from the vehicle.

Instead, he used his time to pull his firearm, ready his position, fire into the corner of the windshield, reposition and then fire into the driver's window.

He chose to kill this woman rather than follow protocol and step aside.   I do not care if this is a result of past trauma or because the guy is just a loose cannon, he was not in imminent danger of death as evidenced by the indisputable fact that he had time to kill this woman and that afterwards, he walked down to inspect his kill and then walk back.   Obviously unharmed.

The corrupt Trump administration is spreading outrageous propaganda, and this is being parroted by 'useful' people.

You're evading the question, let me phrase it more specifically. What is the reason for the surge in ICE actions across the US?

I didnt know whether it was bodycam or the cell phone he was holding but now it has been confirmed it was his personal cell phone. 

It doesnt matter what the reason is.. ICE wants to take thousands or millions of people out of neighborhoods where they are established members of the community. The government needs a new plan. 

 I do not care if this is a result of past trauma or because the guy is just a loose cannon, he was not in imminent danger of death as evidenced by the indisputable fact that he had time to kill this woman

Yep. If he had been hit by the car he would have been thrown off balance and he wouldnt have had time to shoot her before she got away. 

Trump wants people to die. There's no down-side, from his POV. 

He chose to kill this woman rather than follow protocol and step aside.

Exactly. 

As long as they are peacefully demonstrating that is fine.  Once the get to trying and interfere with the lawful action of law  enforcement they should be arrested and held accountable.

While I don't agree with the actions of ICE to my knowledge they are not breaking the law looking for any illegals.

Being agitated does not give anyone the right to break the law.  I don't know why the left, especially the political reps don't get that.  By not trying to get the simmer down they are only going to increase the probability of something bad happening.  It almost seems like that is what some of them want.

Yeah John - their "new" plan is to follow Federal Regulations/Policies/Procedures established by authorization of the U.S.Constitution for immigration.

Simply put - ILLEGAL ALIENS go home - period.  You won't do it on your own?  Fine - we'll help you follow the laws established by our government.

Your issue with that is what???

It's very obvious that you've never had any law enforcement training because you are, indeed, trained in how to use your weapons in all types of situations - including being off balance when the need to use your weapon comes up.

That is exactly what they want.  These protestors are being paid to protest and disrupt the legal activities of ICE.

It looked like his cell phone to me.   Also, note that his cell phone was in his left hand and thus does not properly indicate his body position.   (Not that it matters anyway since he had plenty of time to step aside if he felt the need to do so.)

I do not believe he could have been hit by a car and be shooting a half second later.  Call me picky.

Do you think this cell phone video proves he was hit?

It does however prove she was trying to not hit him. 

If you were this agent, would you have taken your time to step aside (assuming you needed to do so) or would you have taken your time to pull your gun, ready your aim, fire, step aside, fire again into the driver's window?

Especially since a trained agent knows that they are NOT to fire at a moving vehicle except for fear of imminent death.

Since this officer had plenty of time to just step aside and even without doing so he still was unharmed, how can any rational person think this guy was in a situation of imminent death?

Would you?

Would you kill (against protocol) or simply step aside (protocol)?

Do you think people are going to stop being agitated by the presence of camouflaged uniform masked agents on their neighborhood streets?

So why does that matter?

It doesnt matter what the reason is..

But it's the reason for the season...

Why did he have a cell phone in one hand and a gun in the other?  Maybe Sean Hannity will ask Trump that. 

That is exactly what they want.

Sure seems that way.  What is a few lives if it helps you gain a few political points?

These protestors are being paid to protest and disrupt the legal activities of ICE.

How exactly do you know this?

You do know that it is very natural for citizens of this nation to voluntarily protest what they believe is a wrong doing.   Why do you presume they are paid?   Simply because Trump says so?

Do you think people are going to stop being agitated by the presence of camouflaged uniform masked agents on their neighborhood streets? 

Do you understand the difference between being agitated and going after law enforcement carrying out their legal orders?

The only direction all this can go is WORSE.

Maybe the politicians should tell people to stand down with the shenanigans and stick to peaceful  protests

They need a new plan and system for finding the deportables.

I also wish they would be pickier about who they go after but it is what it is and it is legal.

OMG TiG - since when have you become the arbitrar as to what a person is/was thinking when they acted?

 "Used his time"??????  Yeah, he used his time to save himself from a body injury similar to what he encountered 6 months ago when ANOTHER protestor dragged him for over 300 feet with their vehicle resulting in sever body injury with over 33 stitches of damage.  There is ample video footage showing the total opposite of your surmise.

Unless you're "the Great Carnac" or you are visiting the individual's brain, there is absolutely no way you can make the statements of him PLANNING to shoot that woman who threatened his life in a Honda SUV.

BTW, this is not a Biden thing - "corruption" is/was their key activity.  These protestors are being paid to disrupt the ICE operations, and the rumors have it that she was the paid leader for using their vehicles to block the ICE operations.  It ain't the Repubs who are doing this.

foxbaltimore

Report claims far-left groups are behind the funding of anti-ICE protests in Minnesota

yahoo claims far-left groups are behind the funding of anti-ICE protests in Minnesota

Masked agitator tells Laura Ingraham she’s 'getting paid right now' at anti-ICE protest

facebook

These are paid protestors in Minnesota.

Man - I'd like to see that body cam video - got a link???

x

You're serious???  This is the body cam you are touting as showing the officer's malfeasance?  

John - this video was taken by an officer 1/2 to one block from where the incident occurred.  If you'll look at the massive amounts of other video shots, you'll see that this is her first incident of driving "into" an ICE agent - that's why his camera positioning shifted so radically and he was probably on his phone making other agents aware of a 
non-complier".

Please don't attempt to use this video as "evidence" - for the incident of her being shot, go to more accurate sources.

Thanks for the link though.

this video was taken by an officer 1/2 to one block from where the incident occurred.

you need to calm down and think through what you are saying. The video was taken by the shooters cellphone at the scene. This is not in dispute. 

I never said this video proves he is guilty. I said it doesnt prove he is innocent. 

This is not about me, focus on the content.

It does not matter what happened to him in the past.   He had plenty of time to ensure he was out of the way of her path.   The point, which you continue to ignore, is that he chose instead to pull his weapon, ready his aim, fire, reposition to the side and fire again at point-blank through the driver's window.

And note that even with all that activity, while continuing to hold his cell phone, he was indeed free of her path.   He was unharmed and thus clearly was not in imminent danger to his life.

And he is not supposed to fire on a vehicle in the first place.

This does not require reading anyone's mind, just a basic review of the videos.

Cut the bullshit, the deflection, and the tactics and stop trying to defend this corrupt administration by parroting their lies.

This guy unnecessarily killed a human being who was demonstrably no threat to his life.

Step one, stop following Fox News.   They have long since given up on trying to be fair and balanced.

Step two, if there are some paid protesters that does not in any way mean that most (and certainly not all) are.

It is normal in our country for people to voluntarily engage in peaceful protest.

Do you see anything in this bodycam video that shows progressives should be apologizing? 

Why would we imagine that to be the complete set of information?

Under no circumstances in this scenario should that agent shoot this woman for starting to leave the scene.

A full investigation will determine if that's actually what happened.

One thing that may not emerge is the impact politicians had on this tragedy. 

I think that's the clearest element of the entire situation.

There has been plenty of destructive and inflammatory rhetoric on both sides of the immigration issue.

A full investigation and a completed trial will determine the legal, binding truth.   In the meantime, we discuss and debate based on the available evidence (which is now substantial).

We have substantial evidence to draw the clear conclusion that the agent had no reasonable fear of imminent death or serious physical injury and thus violated protocol firing on a moving vehicle.  

Easy to read summary:    thenewstalkers

There is no universal training standard for law enforcement. But most police departments and federal guidance bar shooting at a moving vehicle unless the driver poses an imminent threat of deadly force beyond the car itself .

Why are shootings at vehicles restricted?

Experts say firing at a moving car is one of the riskiest forms of lethal force, increasing the chance of stray gunfire or a loss of vehicle control that can endanger bystanders.

Are officers expected to move out of the way?

Yes . Justice Department policy says deadly force is allowed only when no reasonable alternative exists, including stepping out of the vehicle’s path .

Can officers use deadly force just to stop or arrest someone?

No . Policies generally state officers cannot use deadly force solely to arrest someone or to disable a fleeing vehicle if the person does not pose an immediate threat.

Do federal immigration agents follow different rules?

Not fundamentally. ICE and other federal officers operate under similar Justice Department guidance limiting gunfire at vehicles , although federal agents have added legal protections when acting within their official duties

What is ICE’s policy?

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, allows deadly force only when an officer reasonably believes someone poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury .

apnews

More official:

Immigration agents/officers (as with police officers) operate within a framework of rules.      law.cornell

287.8 Standards for enforcement activities.

The following standards for enforcement activities contained in this section must be adhered to by every  immigration officer  involved in enforcement activities . Any violation of this section shall be reported to the Office of the Inspector General or such other entity as may be provided for in  8 CFR 287.10 .

(a)   Use of force —

(1)  Non-deadly force.

(i)  Non-deadly force is any use of force other than that which is considered deadly force as defined in  paragraph (a)(2)  of this section.

(ii)  Non-deadly force may be used only when a designated  immigration officer , as listed in  paragraph (a)(1)(iv)  of this section, has reasonable grounds to believe that such force is necessary.

(iii)  A designated  immigration officer   shall always use the minimum non-deadly force necessary to accomplish the officer's mission and shall escalate to a higher level of non-deadly force only when such higher level of force is warranted by the actions, apparent intentions, and apparent capabilities of the suspect, prisoner, or assailant.

...

(2)   Deadly force.

(i)  Deadly force is any use of force that is likely to cause death or serious physical injury.

(ii)   Deadly force may be used only when a designated  immigration officer , as listed in  paragraph (a)(2)(iii)  of this section, has reasonable grounds to believe that such force is necessary to protect the designated  immigration officer  or other persons from the imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.

...

(e)   Vehicular pursuit.

(1)  A vehicular pursuit is an active attempt by a designated  immigration officer , as listed in  paragraph (e)(2)  of this section, in a designated pursuit vehicle to apprehend fleeing suspects who are attempting to avoid apprehension. A designated pursuit vehicle is defined as a vehicle equipped with emergency lights and siren, placed in or on the vehicle, that emit audible and visual signals in order to warn others that emergency law enforcement activities are in progress.

I included the vehicular pursuit part because it is the proper protocol in this situation.   It is not protocol to fire on a moving vehicle; the protocol is to pursue it.

A full investigation will determine if that's actually what happened.

They scrubbed that scene as fast as they could, and Minnesota is being blocked from examining evidence. There will be no investigation.

Seems to be the case.   The DoJ will likely make this go away with a sham 'investigation' (the PotUS and Secretary of Homeland security have already established their positions and they are both outrageous lies and that is going to be the corrupt government's position) without a trial and use the Supremacy Clause to prevent Minnesota from pursuing justice.

The lies progressive leaders speak voiumes. They have to lie keep up the narrative.

Dan Goldman: "It was very clear that [Good] was following the orders of the ICE agent to leave."

The orders of the ICE agent: "Get out of the car. Get out of the f*cking car. Get out of the car."

x

if the facts were on their side, why are the lying?  everyone who resorts to lying about the clear instructions she was given is doing so becuase they know they can’t argue the facts honestly.