Kristi Noem is certainly rehabilitating Janet Reno's reputation.  

The wife could just release her video and defeat this evil coverup.  I'm sure she's not releasing it because it makes the officer look so bad. 

The wife could just release her video and defeat this evil coverup.  I'm sure she's not releasing it because it makes the officer look so bad. 

The wife obviously does not have video of the shooting since she was attempting to get into the vehicle when Ross ran around the front of the vehicle to get an easy head shot.  Ross's own cellphone video shows that the wife had stopped filming before the murder occurred.

This is just another TEA Party attempt to blame the victim.  The available evidence does not support the TEA Party falsehoods and fabrications.

Kristi Noem apparently rushed to judgement before she had seen any evidence.  Noem's explanation of events was fabricated.  The delusions of the Trump administration does not count as evidence.

Norm - there are three videos making the routes as being the "true picture".  Ross is not in the first video with the "wife" - he is in the third video jumping out of the way of Good attempting to flee the scene.

TEA Party???? - 2009 - 16 years ago - get up to date please.

Norm - there are three videos making the routes as being the "true picture".  Ross is not in the first video with the "wife" - he is in the third video jumping out of the way of Good attempting to flee the scene. TEA Party???? - 2009 - 16 years ago - get up to date please.

Ross is holding the camera in the video that shows interaction with Becca Good.  That video is from Jonathon Ross' cellphone and shows Ross' movements throughout the entire incident.

The bystander video can be synchronized with Ross' cellphone video to show that Ross made a deliberate risky move from the passenger side of the vehicle to the left front corner during the time it took for the other agent to approach the driver side door.  The other officer can be seen in Ross' cellphone footage while Ross in on the passenger side of the vehicle interacting with Becca Good.  

Ross deliberately placed himself at risk which is against protocol.  Ross deliberately fired his service weapon with another officer in close proximity to the target which is against protocol.  Ross fired at a moving vehicle through the drivers window which is against protocol (Ross was not at any risk at that point).  

Ross was not a contact officer.  That duty was being performed by the other agent at the vehicle drivers door.  That contact officer had his own back up which is protocol.  Ross was not performing his official duties and, in fact, interfered with the contact officer's duties.

If Ross broke every protocol because the interaction with Becca Good pissed him off then that would constitute malicious homicide (which in Minnesota is 2nd degree murder).

Circumstantially it appears that Renee Goods wife backsassing him set him off. 

There is plenty of information proving that an ICE officer is NOT to shoot at a moving vehicle unless there is a reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm.   Something like being in an alley with no place to step aside as a vehicle is barreling down on you.

There is plenty of cellphone footage that shows the car was slowly moving (just started moving) away from the ICE officer.    That this officer should have stepped clear if he felt he was in danger (and that is what the protocol calls for).   That this officer had time to pull his handgun, ready his aim, fire in the driver's corner of the windshield (as the car was turning away from him), reposition, fire again point-blank into the driver window.   And with all that extra time spent, he still was clear of the path of the car and was visibly unharmed as evidenced by him walking down to see his kill and walking back.    And, of course, the car's momentum carried it down the street proving the direction it was heading.

So obviously he had plenty of time to follow protocol and simply step aside (if he felt he was in the path).

You, et. al. ignore ALL of this and keep posting unverifiable, unfalsifiable claims.

Deliver the evidence that you have which causes you to dismiss the volumes of footage and protocol facts now publicly available.

fire in the driver's corner of the windshield (as the car was turning away from him), reposition, fire again point-blank into the driver window.

One of the defenses of him for the second and third shots is that it all went by so fast. If all three shots only took an instant, then he must have been clear of the car before the shooting started, otherwise he wouldnt have had time to put two through the window. 

There is plenty of information proving that an ICE officer is NOT to shoot at a moving vehicle unless there is a reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm

Reasonable threat of bodily harm is a very subjective idea, and very easy to quarterback from the armchair.

There is plenty of cellphone footage that shows the car was slowly moving (just started moving) away from the ICE officer.

There is also now footage on CNN of the car striking the officer as it moved away.

 this officer should have stepped clear if he felt he was in danger (and that is what the protocol calls for).

Arguably he should never have put himself in front of a hostile vehicle in the first place.  

That this officer had time to pull his handgun, ready his aim, fire in the driver's corner of the windshield (as the car was turning away from him), reposition, fire again point-blank into the driver window.

For a practiced shooter all of that takes less than a second.  I've seen a good friend of mine empty a 9 round clip in under 4 seconds.  These guys practice that shit... which raises serious questions about trigger-happiness.

And with all that extra time spent, he still was clear of the path of the car and was visibly unharmed as evidenced by him walking down to see his kill and walking back.

Just because someone doesn't appear injured does not mean they aren't, and just because they aren't hospitalized does not mean they are uninjured.

So obviously he had plenty of time to follow protocol and simply step aside (if he felt he was in the path).

Again, I'm not sure I understand why he was in front of that car in the first place.  It does not seem like standard LEO practice... or prudent action... to try to stop a hostile vehicle with your body.  

This, like most utterly avoidable tragedies, is the culmination of a long series of poor decisions not limited to the immediate participants.

Reasonable threat of bodily harm is a very subjective idea, and very easy to quarterback from the armchair.

Not nearly as hard as you claim.   If a car is just starting to move and its wheels are pointed towards the road and not headed towards you, a fit adult has plenty of time to position themselves well clear of the path.   

In this situation, the officer not only had time to pull his gun (before the car even started moving), but could ready his aim, fire, reposition, fire again into the driver's window and then walk away apparently unharmed.

If he could do all that, he sure as hell could have followed protocol and stepped aside.   Instead he violated protocol and killed a human being.

There is also now footage on CNN of the car striking the officer as it moved away.

Show it!   The guy walked down to the crash site to see his kill and then walked back.   If the car made contact with the officer, it was obviously minor.   And again, the car was directed down the street.   The momentum of the vehicle after the driver was shot proves where it was headed.   It clearly was NOT headed along a vector matching that trajectory and impact of the bullet (lower corner of the driver side).   It was moving away from that vector.

For a practiced shooter all of that takes less than a second. 

For any fit adult it takes less time to just step aside (if needed).

Just because someone doesn't appear injured does not mean they aren't

If there was any injury (being generous here) it clearly was nowhere near the point of imminent death or serious injury.

Again, I'm not sure I understand why he was in front of that car in the first place. 

He positioned himself for a 45° shot at the driver before the vehicle started moving.   That is a violation of protocol right there.   Protocol would be to step aside.   He was on the left corner of the vehicle as the vehicle wheels were turned to the right (away from his vector).   

Not nearly as hard as you claim.

Nothing is hard from the armchair.  Especially when you get to watch instant replay.

If the car made contact with the officer, it was obviously minor.

But there was contact.  And once again, we're going by "what it looks like" on the only videos we have.  In 30 years of coaching contact sports, some of the worst injuries I've seen looked like nothing when they happened.  

Regardless, the thing that causes shots to be fired is the fear of injury, not the injury itself.  To say he had no "reasonable threat of bodily harm" right before a car made contact with him doesn't really work very well.  If this was some Christian nationalist who bumped a female patrol officer, the entire liberalsphere would be squawking about how "he tried to kill her".

So to me, the issue becomes how he got himself there.  You mentioned "protocol".  You're going to have a long way to go to convince me that standard LEO "protocol" does not include "don't put yourself in front of a hostile vehicle in the first place".

To that point and to yours, the larger question I would ask is "WTF were you doing in front of that crazy woman's car?" 

Forget dodging the car.  Why do you need to dodge the car in the first place?

She's intentionally blocking the road, she's intentionally trying to interfere with law enforcement, and she's clearly antagonistic.  A person who is choosing to do this is also probably highly emotionally unstable and is already behaving erratically.  So naturally, what you want to do is put yourself in the ONLY position where she could possibly hurt you.  How big a moron must you be?  Are you trying to get run over? You'd literally have been safer handing her your gun.

She's intentionally blocking the road, she's intentionally trying to interfere with law enforcement, and she's clearly antagonistic.  A person who is choosing to do this is also probably highly emotionally unstable and is already behaving erratically. 

Just for giggles, what percentage of ICE agents do you think are anti-social psychopaths ?  If everyone who protests them is emotionally unstable , according to you, then you must surely agree the behavior of many of these guys is goonish. 

Nothing is hard from the armchair. 

The videos are clear.   There is a profound difference between imminent death and potential for brushing.    No way on the planet was this car directed at the officer and it is very likely that he was untouched.   At worst he was brushed.   The idea that he, after positioning himself to fire on the front left corner of the windshield (from the driver's perspective) before she started moving illustrates clearly that he could have instead stepped aside (if he believed he needed to).  He did not.  He blatantly violated protocol.

But there was contact. 

Show it!   I have watched every video that I could find and the only one that even looks like contact was a fuzzy, long distance video that overlooked the right side of the car.   The close-up videos show the officer's feet well clear of the car and the wheels directed away from the officer.   Clear as day.

Regardless, the thing that causes shots to be fired is the fear of injury, not the injury itself.  

The word reasonable is operative.

You're going to have a long way to go to convince me that standard LEO "protocol" does not include "don't put yourself in front of a hostile vehicle in the first place".

I have no idea why you think I have suggested otherwise.   Standard protocol is to step aside.   I stated that clearly: "If he could do all that, he sure as hell could have followed protocol and stepped aside. "   I also stated it twice @2.2.  First with this ("That this officer should have stepped clear if he felt he was in danger (and that is what the protocol calls for).  ") and you even quoted me stating it the second time in @2.2: 

TiG@2.2 ☞ So obviously he had plenty of time to follow protocol and simply step aside (if he felt he was in the path).

I certainly agree he should not place himself in front of a vehicle.  That is both stupid and it violates protocol.   But the key issue here is the killing of a human being.   Was this officer justified in using lethal force in this situation?   I see no grounds for it at all.   I would be shocked if some new evidence arose that demonstrates he had a reasonable fear of imminent death, etc. in this situation.   Instead of pulling his gun, etc., while the vehicle was not even moving, he should have stepped aside.

I doubt a legitimate court would rule that an officer who intentionally positions himself outside the driver's front corner and fires at the driver is a situation where the officer had a reasonable fear of imminent death.   I suspect (and expect) that a fair verdict would be that the officer should have just stepped aside rather than kill this human being.

The videos are clear.

From the armchair.  So is the film from a football game.  It doesn't begin to emulate what it's like on the field. 

The word reasonable is operative.

And subjective.

I have no idea why you think I have suggested otherwise.

Didn't say you had.  It's a figure of speech.  Not everything is an argument, FFS.

But the key issue here is the killing of a human being.  

If you believe, as I do, that this woman was killed due to an error in judgement, the natural inclination should be to look for ways to reduce the risk of something like this happening again.  This opens a pretty sizeable set of previous judgement errors, including but not limited to:

• The decisions of various American jurisdictions to hinder the enforcement of federal law.
• The federal decision to use combative, military style operations as the mainstay of immigration enforcement.
• The behaviors of prominent liberal figures who choose to villainize law enforcement for political gain. 
• The organizers of efforts to obstruct justice.
• The supervisory structure of ICE, who have failed to develop effective ways to dismantle known organized efforts to obstruct justice.
• The training structures of various LEOs who put these people into known dangerous situations without proper training.
• Her driving several hours for the express purpose of breaking the law.
• His decision to stand in front of an obviously hostile vehicle.
• Her decision to refuse lawful commands of law enforcement.
• His decision to keep standing in front of an obviously hostile vehicle.
• Her decision to drive off while endangering and eventually contacting an LEO with her vehicle.

All of that culminates in his decision to shoot.

Each of these previous decisions eliminates possible peaceful outcomes.  So as each was made, the chances of a violent outcome increased.  Everybody along the way should have known better than to do what they did.

So yeah, I think he made a series of poor decisions.  But so did she.  So did an awful lot of people who contributed to the two of them arriving in that spot together. 

Unfortunately, that's all gone about as badly is it possibly could have.

It's very easy to vilify a single person who made a poor call in the heat of the moment.  It's even easier to do that when he's a white male LEO enforcing Trump policy. 

It's also lazy.

From the armchair. 

More like per the slowed-down, multi-angle replays.

Her mistakes did not justify being killed.   And outside of people making claims, I have yet to see someone deliver a video that shows her trying to hit the officer with her car.   Nor do I see anyone explaining the volume of videos that clearly show she was heading away from the officer and towards the road.   Especially since that is where the momentum of her car took her after she was shot.

That is the key here.   

There is plenty of information proving that an ICE officer is NOT to shoot at a moving vehicle unless there is a reasonable threat of death or great bodily harm. 

No kidding. I've been saying that since it happened. 

Something like being in an alley with no place to step aside as a vehicle is barreling down on you.

Let's use an example already unanimously agreed was reasonable use of force by the Supreme Court. In that case, the suspect, from a stop, drove past an officer who was able to avoid being hit.  Then the police opened fire.  The Court simply reiterate the obvious, that driving at an officer, even if the officer is able to avoid being hit completely, obviously created a situation where the officer reasonably feared being injured.

When a car is pointed towards an officer and accelerates, the officer doesn't, know if the driver will change course. Officers are not mind readers. Which is why it's funny people try and "prove" what Good was thinking. The only thing that matter is the officer knew she was disobeying directions and driving at him. No honest person could say they wouldn't feel at risk of being hurt in that case. . 

o obviously he had plenty of time to follow protocol and simply step aside (if he felt he was in the path)

Lol. The Supreme Court (and basic common sense) tells you otherwise. An officer standing in front of car moving towards him does not know if the driver is going to follow him . It's why you don't drive at a police officer after being told to get out of the car.  You know cops aren't mind readers, right? 

But keep telling us how being in front of a moving car driven by someone ignoring police isn't a situation that would make reasonable people threatened. It's embarrassing to watch. 

His problem is the front of the car was already past him when he started shooting

Another new argument. How'd the bullet go through the front windshield?

Where's the other officer relative to the car when she pulls away? 

The car never "hit " him and he knew that when he fired.  Yes it was fast, but cops are supposed to be aware.  The new video footage also seems to show he could have not fired the second and third shot. 

he car never "hit " him and he knew that when he fired. 

Yes it did, and for the 1000th time it doesn't matter if it did. When he pulled his gun, he is in front of a car pointing directly at him and has stopped reversing and is moving forward . Hr doesn't have to wait and see if he's going to get hit by a car, or in other circumstances, shot before being able to confirm that he's in danger of being hurt. 

It's just ludicrous to watch democrats believe someone standing in front of an SUV driven by a criminal who is ignoring officer's commands isn't in danger of being hurt once the driver starts coming towards him. . It's laughable.  

Who was in more danger at the moment they pulled trigger, the officer standing in front of an SUV being driven at him or the officer standing across the room from an tiny unarmed woman? 

The new video footage also seems to show he could have not fired the second and third shot. 

Another irrelevant fact. The Supreme Court has said, for obvious reasons, you don't separately evaluate each shot in a series. If the first shot is justified, the subsequent ones take in rapid succession are as well. 

Let's use an example already unanimously agreed was reasonable use of force by the Supreme Court. In that case, the suspect, from a stop, drove past an officer who was able to avoid being hit.  Then the police opened fire.  The Court simply reiterate the obvious, that driving at an officer, even if the officer is able to avoid being hit completely, obviously created a situation where the officer reasonably feared being injured.

Cite the case.   Your representation of the facts of the case are likely wrong.   In short, I do not care about your spin, show me that actual case you are citing.

The Supreme Court (and basic common sense) tells you otherwise.

You making claims means nothing.   Prove your claim.

An officer standing in front of car moving towards him does not know if the driver is going to follow him.

Who says the officer was standing in front of the car?   He was on the driver's front corner.   (Do you not even bother to note the bullet hole in the lower side corner of the windshield?  Do you ignore the countless clear videos that show exactly where the driver's feet were?   Get real.)   

Who says it was moving?   He pulled his gun before the car started to move forward.   

And since when is a functioning adult unable to see the orientation of tires?  

It's why you don't drive at a police officer after being told to get out of the car.  You know cops aren't mind readers, right? 

Again, you are in fantasy land.   But of course we know why, because you cannot stick with the actual evidence and facts since that would contradict the bullshit you have been touting for days now.

The car was never going to run him down. There is no video that shows the possibility of him being run down. 

You made a big deal showing the camera jumbling around , as if that meant he was being hit.  But no video shows him impacting with the car to an extent that it would turn the camera upside down. He must have been turning it with his hand. 

In the Trump era the new game is to keep spouting the same outrageous lies well after the lies have been shown to be false.   Just keep going.   That is how Trump operates and apparently his followers think this is a fine behavior to emulate.

More like per the slowed-down, multi-angle replays.

Yes.  Exactly.  That's what it always looks like from the armchair.  That's the point.

Ever play quarterback?  Oddly enough, linebackers don't actually blitz in slow motion and your helmet doesn't have split screen.

This didn't happen in slow motion, either.  

Her mistakes did not justify being killed. 

No, and walking alone at night down East 4th Street in LA doesn't justify you being mugged.  But it damn sure increases the odds. 

Again, this was a perfect storm of poor decisions.  Ms. No Accountability clashed with Mr. Trigger Happy and in a not altogether unpredictable way things went horribly wrong.

That is the key here.   

The real key here as far as I'm concerned is what type of structural adjustments are made to try and make this the last one of these incidents instead of the "first of many".

This didn't happen in slow motion, either.  

The reason slow-motion (especially frame-by-frame) replay is used is because human beings have limited lines of sight and fallible memories (subject to false memories).   We also can only absorb so much information and if an event happens in a split second (as in this case), it is valuable to be able to go back and review exactly what happened as slowly as possible to analyze every little detail and movement.   

This is an extremely valuable tool in sports and in situations like these.   If we have clear video from multiple angles and can inspect it frame by frame, we can make sound determinations of what actually took place.

In this case, we can see clearly that the officer's feet were always on the side of the vehicle when it was moving.   That the trajectory of the vehicle was away from the officer (not heading directly toward him) and can see that even after the driver was shot, the vehicle proceeded down the street and not in a vector targeting the officer.

We can also clearly see what the officer did.   He pulled his gun before the vehicle starting moving closer to him (albeit at a different angle).   That is when he should have simply stepped aside per protocol.

He had plenty of time pull his weapon, ready his aim, fire, reposition, fire again into the driver's side window, and all the while was never in front of the vehicle.

The officer voluntarily positioned himself at the front corner of the vehicle to be able to fire a shot.   He could have voluntarily taken another step but chose instead to use lethal force.

No, and walking alone at night down East 4th Street in LA doesn't justify you being mugged.  But it damn sure increases the odds. 

And if you are mugged, is the mugger justified because you were walking on a bad street at night?   No!

That is the point; this was an unnecessary use of lethal force and moreso it violated clear protocol.   Even if this woman was screaming mad at the officers prior to her death, it would still be wrong.   And, case in point, this woman was smiling, calm, and noted to her killer that she was not mad at him.

The real key here as far as I'm concerned is what type of structural adjustments are made to try and make this the last one of these incidents instead of the "first of many".

That cannot be done if we have a corrupt administration that is casting the victim as a domestic terrorist who ran over an ICE officer.   And then continue with this sick propaganda with no corrections based on the evidence and then, it would seem, takes action to bury the investigation so that justice is not served.   That will kill any structural adjustment to the positive and will embolden more acts like this.

If we do not hold this administration accountable and engage in a full, honest investigation nothing will happen.   And when people give extreme benefits of the doubt in this situation, they further enable this administration to successfully bury this and move on.

Yes it did

Only because he stood in front of it. Is he out of the hospital yet? Trump said he was in critical condition, yet from under the car, he was able to get three head shots.....How?

The car never "hit " him

You need to make up your mind. You have said several times that it looks like the vehicle did make contact. That is called hitting him. 

simply step aside

This is akin to "why didn't he just shoot him in the leg"?

Trump said he was in critical condition

Can you show where Trump said that?

Taken from another site, but the lady who made the post of 100% correct:

I’m a mother, so I’m going to comment right now. I will say this exactly the way a mother thinks it, raw, direct, and without pretending this is complicated.
A 37-year-old woman. Three kids. Middle of a work week. The father of those children is dead. She is the parent left. The one job she has above every cause, every protest, every headline, is getting home to her kids.
And what is she doing instead?
She’s out of state (other reports claim she lives there), in the street, in her car, blocking federal agents who are doing their job. Not alone! Her partner is right there filming her like this is some brave little documentary moment. Around them: sirens blaring, people yelling, pure chaos, manufactured chaos, so agents can’t do their lawful duty.
Her window is down. She hears the orders. She understands the orders. She ignores the orders.
Then she puts the car in reverse.
Still doesn’t comply.
Then she puts it in drive, NOT park! She moves forward into the agent. 
That’s not “confusion.”
That’s not “panic.”
That’s decision after decision after decision.
Now put yourself in the agent’s shoes for half a second. A driver is already in an unlawful act! refusing commands in a hostile, chaotic scene, and now that driver uses a vehicle to move toward you. You get a split second. You don’t get the luxury of “Maybe she’s just stressed.” You have to assume the worst, you have to think of protecting other people like the partner at the window, because if you assume the best and you’re wrong, you don’t go home or someone else. 
So the agent fires after she makes an intentional and aggressive move toward him, because he has no idea what her intentions are, and she just demonstrated she’s willing to escalate.
Now… imagine her three kids. At school. Sitting there like any other day. Not knowing their mother is out playing street-hero games for criminals in the middle of a work week, with the two adults responsible for them!
She didn’t think about them.
She didn’t think, “If I get arrested, who picks my babies up?”
She didn’t think, “If I get hurt, who raises them?”
She didn’t think, “If I die, they have nobody.”
She thought about protecting criminals.
She thought about interfering with federal agents.
She thought about the camera.
She thought about the crowd.
She thought about the moment.
There is no amount of evidence, money, tears on TV, or news spin that can make this make sense.
As a mother: NOTHING about this makes sense.
At minimum, she knew her actions could get her arrested. At minimum. And she still chose it. She chose strangers. She chose chaos. She chose lawlessness.
Make it make sense, because the only thing I see is three kids who just got abandoned by the only parent they had left, not by accident… but by a series of deliberate choices.

Trump, in a social media post hours after the Wednesday morning shooting, said the driver — later identified as Renee Nicole Good — “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem accused the driver of trying to run the officer over, saying “she hit him” in “an act of domestic terrorism.” The agency called her a violent rioter. All said the officer fired in self-defense.

“ It is hard to believe he is alive,” Trump said. (emphasis mine)

A close look at the videos shows that Good’s car did not knock down the officer, whose legs were to the side of the SUV as it moved by him while he fired. The officer walked away from the scene unassisted. Noem said he was treated at a hospital and released. nbcnews

Now why would he say it's hard to believe the monster is alive when clearly he wasn't struck by the car. Granted he didn't say he was in critical condition but he implied the monster was injured badly.

hysteria

he didn't say he was in critical condition b

Thank you for acknowledging the post in question was a lie.

Agree. Good was there because she bought into the hysteria many dem politicians have been peddling 

This makes one hundred percent sense,  but many on the left lack much of that.

Here is Greg Guttfield, I believe yesterday, making just as much sense that most on the left will simply ignore...

"I want every liberal, because we have millions of liberals watching this show, to engage in a thought scenario, okay. You ask your sister this question: What are your plans today, ‘Deborah?’ And she goes, 'Well, I plan on filming myself harassing and impeding armed law enforcement.' 

So how would you respond to your sister? You'd say, 'honey, do you think that's wise? What about the kids? Where are the kids?' Oh, I drop them off at daycare." 

So what time are you doing this? 'At 11?' Aren't you working? 'Oh, no, not at the moment.' So, you drop your kids off at daycare, you're not working, and you're going to stalk law enforcement?! Don't you think this is time you should spend with your family or maybe do a job search or take some classes? Don't you think this is unhealthy behavior? 

Now, if you deny to a family member or to a best friend that this is how you would react, you are lying to yourself to protect your public virtue on this matter. 

This is how you get, in my opinion, the fake empathy liberal to return to reality. If your sister is telling you that instead of caring for her children or her mental health, that she prefers to stalk law enforcement, would you say, you go girl? Of course not. You would say, you need an intervention. "

dem politicians have been peddling

Notice that none of those politicians are willing to go on the street and engage in the same behavior they are inciting mentally ill people to do?

They don't care about those people. To them, they are pawns needed for the greater good of liberalism. It's not them that will get harmed if they act stupid, but they are indirectly responsible for those that do. 

He is correct other than thinking anyone would engage in a thought scenario 

Many seem fine sacrificing a few lives to make political points. And now many are ratcheting up the rhetoric.

Good point

I believe they know their assess are cooked with the fraud investigation going on. They probably believe that if they push that investigation farther into the future, and if a dem gets back into the WH, the investigation will go away.

I would encourage the Trump admin to step on the gas and get this investigation done....correctly...in a quick amount of time. 

I wasn't talking about her

I was

Agree but I am not sure i buy into not allowing a local investigation also if allowable considering jurisdiction 

good for you. I wasn't

Of course you post someone's opinion trying to blame the victim.

None of her bad choices come even remotely close to justifying her killing.   She is dead.   She cannot be prosecuted for anything.   The only action that can be taken is to hold accountable the officer who killed her.

This bullshit of 'waiting for the facts' is exposed as such by you posting this victim-blaming opinion piece.

I agree but the left message is so ingrained in Minnesota politics that there is almost no way the investigation would be fair.

You can ALMOST make the same argument with the DOJ. 

Which basically shows it is such a polarizing issue right now getting a fair and impartial investigation/trial will be very difficult.  That is obvious right here where some folks have already made up their minds and need no further investigation.

True. The ones on the left claiming the car did not hit the agent know that if they changed their tune and admit what really happened, their base would really rise up and burn down the city. 

It's too late to change their story to the truth. They have tried 6 or 7 different excuses but every one of them have been shot down. 

Of course you post someone's opinion trying to blame the victim.

Not blame the victim just pointing out the inconvenient truth that she put herself in a position that had the potential to turn bad.  Reminds me of giving up dirt bike racing after I had kids.  My priorities shifted.

None of her bad choices come even remotely close to justifying her killing.   She is dead.   She cannot be prosecuted for anything.   

Agree In a perfect world that is not the way it would have gone down.

The only action that can be taken is to hold accountable the officer who killed her.

If he deserves to be held accountable he should be.  That is what the system is for.

This bullshit of 'waiting for the facts' is exposed as such by you posting this victim-blaming opinion piece.

Bullshit.  Pointing out choices made is not blaming anyone, unless you want it to.  And it seems you might.   This is an opinion piece that another 37 year old with kids made.  If you can not empathize with what she is saying that is on you.

Since having adult conversations with some is an exercise in futility I will end here.

You have said what  you have to say (misinterpreting as usual) and I have said what I have to say.  Have a great day.

The evidence shows that the officer was not hit.   Deliver your evidence that he was hit.   Explain how the agent could be hit by the vehicle when the clear video shows his feet on the side of the vehicle and the vehicle was turning away from where he was standing.

You ignore the evidence and just go with Trump's propaganda.

Seems this is no win all the way around.  A woman is dead and the guy that shot her probably can't get a fair trial.  And people are going to be pissed off either way.  Of course I have a feeling only one side will riot if they don't get their way.

No, you are clearly trying to blame the victim.   Using the Trump technique of denying the obvious is not going to work.

You do not acknowledge the evidence showing how the officer was not reasonably in any imminent threat of death and how he ignored protocol and instead unnecessarily used lethal force.

But you do post a victim-blaming opinion piece.

How stupid do you think readers are?

oh fer chrissakes

See 2.2.42

Deliver your evidence that he was hit.   

I gave him the evidence. He didn't read it. He looked for one thing in my comment and that's all he took away from it

A woman is dead and the guy that shot her probably can't get a fair trial. 

He will likely not get any trial.   The administration has already indicated that it is going to bury this by not allowing the state to be involved.

Of course I have a feeling only one side will riot if they don't get their way.

Really now? And what if he does go to trial? Do you think MAGA and their ICE toadies will stand quietly by?

Of course, you have no rebuttal.

You blame the victim and then later worry that the officer will not get a fair trial.

Personally I don't like that decision and am not sure of the legality of it.  At a minimum it is bad optics and at worst it is a cover up.  I also have to question how fair things would be if it is left to Minneapolis to investigate.  Like I think I said , the polarized nature of this will make it hard for a fair investigation and trial.

Again, see 2.2.42.  But it is interesting that you don't seem concerned that the agent gets a fair trial.

Do you think MAGA and their ICE toadies will stand quietly by?

How many riots have they had so far?

I remember quite a few times when your kind didn't want someone to get a fair trial. It was "hang 'em! hang 'em now!"

Do you think MAGA and their ICE toadies will stand quietly by?

Can you point out anytime in the last 10 years where those on the right did not get their way and burned down a city?

Not sure what my kind is but please tell me when I have once said someone should not get a fair trial.

I stated your kind. That doesn't necessarily mean you. But your fellow travelers have

And you continue to ignore the evidence showing he was hit - wonder why?

It does not matter how polarized this is.   That is true of any publicly known killing.   

Why are you even bothering with this?   An officer unnecessarily killed a human being.   This is headline news.   There is nothing that can be done about that.

The judicial system has dealt with situations like this before.   They can figure it out.

In the meantime, we have a corrupt administration that looks like it is going to make this go away with no justice.   That is what should concern you more than anything else - corruption at the highest level.

"waiting for facts" is kinda the way cases are based/built.

Not everyone wins when all they do is "surmise" without "waiting for the facts" as many have done.

Instead of making snide trollish quips, show the evidence that he was hit.   And then spend some time looking at the very clear evidence (all over the place) that shows he was NOT hit.

"waiting for facts"

Is being used as an excuse.   There exists tons of evidence.   If one does not want to acknowledge the current facts, they use the bullshit excuse of "waiting for facts".

And start putting people in jail instead of mouthing platitudes.

The "evidence" has been presented many times - BUT - many totally ignore it because it doesn't fit their "opinion".

It does not matter how polarized this is.    

Of course it does

Why are you even bothering with this?   An officer unnecessarily killed a human being.   This is headline news.   There is nothing that can be done about that.

There is more than just the headline news

The judicial system has dealt with situations like this before.   They can figure it out.

If people (and you) are correct the government will either cover it up or he will get a trial in an area that may very well convict him because of what they are reading in the headlines

    That is what should concern you more than anything else 

I can choose on my own what concerns me most.

Yeah, as I figured, you are just talking.   Put forth the evidence showing he was hit.

It strikes me as strange when people need decisions on guilt or innocence within 48 hours of the incident.  But it is not surprising that their conclusion is based on ideology as much as anything else. 

Of course it does

No it does not.   There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.    What is done is done.   So it does not matter.

What matters is moving forward and bringing justice.  As I noted, this is not the first high profile case.   High profile cases are dealt with all the time.

Their evidence he was hit pretty much begins and ends with his cell phone camera seemingly jostled as he was holding it. 

But it is not surprising that their conclusion is based on ideology as much as anything else. 

Those who are trying to blame the victim (in support of Trump) are clearly using ideology / partisanship as their guide.

And they of course use projection to claim those of us who are commenting directly based on the evidence, protocol, and the law are in some way driven by ideology.

Pathetic but typical projection by those who are driven to defend a corrupt administration.

Those claiming he was hit know that they have no case.   How many times have you and I asked them to produce their evidence and are met with silence (or more bullshit)?

And note how with the preponderance of clear video showing the officer's feet away from the vehicle (among other facts) is flat-out ignored by these same people.

And even without all this evidence, the guy was standing throughout.  He never lost his footing, and then he walked down to the crash site to inspect his kill and then walked back.   No way was this a situation where he reasonably feared imminent death.   He blatantly violated protocol and unnecessarily killed a human being.

It is sickening.

No it does not.   There is no way to put the genie back in the bottle.    What is done is done.   So it does not matter.

Yes it does.  Not for the past but how it is handled going forward.

What matters is moving forward and bringing justice.  As I noted, this is not the first high profile case.   High profile cases are dealt with all the time.

Will you accept the judgement if the DOJ says he acted in self defense and there should be no charges?  Do you think the people currently protesting will accept it?

See 2.2.42

Not for the past but how it is handled going forward.

Your concern is absurd.

Our nation handles high profile cases all the time.   Get a grip.

Will you accept the judgement if the DOJ says he acted in self defense and there should be no charges?  Do you think the people currently protesting will accept it?

Probably no and definitely no

The latter will once again burn Minneapolis.

Our nation handles high profile cases all the time.   Get a grip.

Snarkiness aside, Will you accept the judgement if the DOJ says he acted in self defense and there should be no charges?  Do you think the people currently protesting will accept it?

The latter will once again burn Minneapolis.

I don't think it will  be held to just Minneapolis. 

Will you accept the judgement if the DOJ says he acted in self defense and there should be no charges?  Do you think the people currently protesting will accept it?

Of course not . Sensible people do not trust Noem, Miller, Bondi, Patel and Trump. They lie way to much. 

Of course not .

So much for my concern being absurd.

So much for my concern being absurd.

Told ya...

Will you accept the judgement if the DOJ says he acted in self defense and there should be no charges? 

That depends on the argument and the evidence.   We are dealing with a corrupt DoJ so I will NOT merely accept their results.   If they can magically produce real evidence that shows he followed protocol then he should be acquitted without charges.

Do you seriously want to claim that the current DoJ is NOT corrupt?   Do you actually believe that this DoJ will engage in normal jurisprudence? 

oh please

The current DOJ? The current corrupt DOJ?

When I joined the Navy 40 years ago, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States., I took the same oath every 4 years until I hit 20 years. Nowhere in that oath did it say to defend illegal invaders or to attack agents trying to do their CONGRESS given jobs.'

I would be ashamed of myself if I defended these invaders because all it is doing it negating everything a veteran stood for during their careers. 

Thank you for acknowledging the post in question was a lie.

Thanks for acknowledging that trump lied when he said ross was ran over. 

Thanks for acknowledging that trump lied when he said ross was ran over. 

Was he hit? Doesn't matter if the wheels went over him. If the car made contact, he got hit by it.

Would you had rather he wait until both axles went over him before he took defensive shots?

While that may be true of you I have to wonder how many people have made up their minds and any new (not needed ) evidence will not change their mind.  Your comment also assumes all information will be made public.

What about if the DOJ brings it to trial and he is found not guilty?  Would you accept that verdict?

Do you seriously want to claim that the current DoJ is NOT corrupt?   

Did I seriously suggest that when I clearly said "Personally I don't like that decision and am not sure of the legality of it.  At a minimum it is bad optics and at worst it is a cover up.  I also have to question how fair things would be if it is left to Minneapolis to investigate. "  

Do you actually believe that this DoJ will engage in normal jurisprudence? 

75/25 against them being on the up and up.

65/35 against Minneapolis/Minnesota being on the up and up.

Ergo my concern about him being treated failrly.

oh please

Not the most convincing rebuttal

I take it you will not believe what the say no matter what their investigation finds.

I would be ashamed of myself if I defended these invaders because all it is doing it negating everything a veteran stood for during their careers. 

What boggles my mind is the politicians going against what the fed has a right to do and not holding people accountable for the illegal things they are doing against ice and then being surprised when things turn sideways. 

It also boggles my mind that no politicians have ever been able to say lets wait for a full investigation.

lets wait for a full investigation.

from who, Bondi and Patel?   They have no credibility. 

I have to wonder how many people have made up their minds and any new (not needed ) evidence will not change their mind. 

Who cares?   A woman was unnecessarily killed.   The evidence overwhelmingly shows this.   The likelihood that new evidence will show otherwise is slim at this point.

What about if the DOJ brings it to trial and he is found not guilty? 

I will accept the verdict of a normal, conventional trial with a jury.

Did I seriously suggest that when I clearly said "Personally I don't like that decision and am not sure of the legality of it. 

I see you posting anonymous opinion blaming the victim and expressing concern that the officer will get a fair trial.

Given the clear evidence showing he broke protocol and unnecessarily killed a human being, I have not seen you acknowledge the persuasiveness of this evidence.

You have offered some feeble defenses for the Trump administration and a substantial amount of (typical) reticent language.   Numerous equivocations and "wait and see" deferrals.

Who cares

Anyone that want a fair investigation and no violence from the people that dont get their way

So you ignore much of what I say and stick to your narrative. 

Cool

And you might wonder why I might not want to engage 

I would say see 2.2. 42 but I am confident it will just be ignored 

Pretty sure taking him out back and hanging him would be frowned upon 

The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Dept. is the division that normally investigates police involved cases. A Trump flunky now in charge of that division decided not to follow that precedent. 

So you ignore much of what I say and stick to your narrative. 

Another dishonest claim from you.

And of course, you claim I ignore what you write (bullshit!) yet you demonstrate that you do exactly that by not considering what I wrote after what you quoted.   

Projection and intellectual dishonesty from you yet again.

A totally accurate claim and you are still doing it

Once again accusing someone of what you are doing.

How typical

The reason slow-motion (especially frame-by-frame) replay is used is because human beings have limited lines of sight and fallible memories (subject to false memories).   We also can only absorb so much information and if an event happens in a split second (as in this case), it is valuable to be able to go back and review exactly what happened as slowly as possible to analyze every little detail and movement.

Yes.  Those are also the exact reasons that slow motion replay is nearly completely useless when assessing things like whether a real-time perception of threat is "reasonable".  It's an entirely different set of data than was available on the ground in real time.

The officer voluntarily positioned himself at the front corner of the vehicle to be able to fire a shot.   He could have voluntarily taken another step but chose instead to use lethal force.

You have zero idea why he put himself there.  He could just be a bit stupid.  Or careless. 

But do you see how hard you are working subconsciously to justify your need to vilify this man?

And if you are mugged, is the mugger justified because you were walking on a bad street at night?

We seem to be headed back to the Land of Binary, where we allow brain dead partisans with zero imagination to define all the possible outcomes we consider.  Let's avoid that.

The two outcomes the morons want to argue are (generally speaking) that either a) she was a helpless victim who did no wrong and he was the jack-booted foot of Trump's oppression .... or.... b) he was justified in protecting himself while she was a dangerous agitator who recklessly or intentionally endangered and LEO and met the "find out" phase of FAFO.

The more probable reality, it seems to me, is that she should not have been there doing what she was doing, she needlessly and stupidly per herself in a dangerous situation.... AND .... he should not have done what he did, he needlessly and stupidly put himself in a dangerous situation, violated protocol, and shot someone he shouldn't have.  

I've found that when in doubt, assuming stupidity over malice is normally more accurate.

Those are also the exact reasons that slow motion replay is nearly completely useless when assessing things like whether a real-time perception of threat is "reasonable". 

Well then you should try to convince professional sports that reviewing an event frame-by-frame, from multiple angles, without a split-second time crunch is completely useless. 

Good luck.   (I am surprised you are making this ridiculous argument.)

You seem to think that any split-second decision is ipso-facto allowed as 'reasonable'.   If that were the case, then any use of lethal force could be excused with 'that is what I believed at the moment'.   That is not how this works.

You have zero idea why he put himself there. 

If you are clueless about this that does not mean that I am.   I most definitely have more than 'zero idea' why he put himself there.   Here is a thought, maybe he took a position where his next act, drawing his gun, would provide him a kill shot.

We cannot know for certain what this guy was thinking but we sure as hell can draw very reasonable hypotheses from the circumstances.

But do you see how hard you are working subconsciously to justify your need to vilify this man?

I am dealing with people like you (and much much worse) who are working overtime to defend this guy and by extension the corrupt Trump administration.

We seem to be headed back to the Land of Binary, ...

Back to your obnoxious fantasy.   Happens every time your argument is rebutted.

The two outcomes the morons want to argue are (generally speaking) that either a) she was a helpless victim who did no wrong and he was the jack-booted foot of Trump's oppression .... or.... b) he was justified in protecting himself while she was a dangerous agitator who recklessly or intentionally endangered and LEO and met the "find out" phase of FAFO.

The reality, based on the evidence, is that she made obvious (minor) mistakes, but in no way did she do anything that justifies her being killed.

I've found that when in doubt, assuming stupidity over malice is normally more accurate.

How about just looking at the evidence and going with what it shows?   Better than making assumptions.

Was he hit? Doesn't matter if the wheels went over him. If the car made contact, he got hit by it.

Not what trump said... Look it up. 

ICE agents do not have the authority to detain ordinary citizens unless they have a warrant for their arrest or observe them committing a federal crime. Ice agents also are not supposed to enforce local and state laws. That job belongs to the police. 

Where were the police? 

I am sick to death of the abuse of power of this tyrannical regime. The ICE agents had no reason to believe that she was either a immigrant or had committed a federal crime and therefore had no authority to tell her to exit the vehicle.

None.

They were creating the whole scene. Not her. She had just dropped her kid at school. She wasn't some type of vagabond road warrior. 

The ICE vehicle that her killer got out of to walk around her auto was there before her vehicle was. She had to be across the road to get around the ICE vehicle. The truck that pulled up on the other side? She actually was waving it on. They started the confrontation, not Renee Good. Because that is what their job is. ICE is intentionally exceeding their authority in order to purposely piss people off and to instigate violent confrontations. That has been their consistent MO since the Trump regime began. Fascism 101. 

And then you go and post something like that drivel above and some fools or ill-informed people might just believe it. That you believe it is true... well, there is no accounting for taste.

Well then you should try to convince professional sports that reviewing an event frame-by-frame, from multiple angles, without a split-second time crunch is completely useless. 

Or.., better idea...you should try to understand how and why they use it.

You seem to think that any split-second decision is ipso-facto allowed as 'reasonable'. 

No.  Try again.

If you are clueless about this that does not mean that I am

Your cluelessness is completely independent of mine and of your own making.

I am dealing with people like you (and much much worse) who are working overtime to defend this guy and by extension the corrupt Trump administration.

In the same way Don Quixote was fighting giants.

This 'defending Trump's accusation across this forum has reached such a pervasive level of stupidity that it's become funny.

Almost any fact pointing out anything that is not accompanied by brainless condemnation is decried as 'defending Trump.'

"Navy beat Army this year"

"Why are you defending Trump????"

I'm starting to wonder how far it might actually go. I feel fairly comfortable that at least a few people would use it if I said Donald Trump didn't actually kill Archduke Ferdinand.  I think I'd probably still catch it if I pointed out that Trump didn't actually lead the Charge of the Light Brigade. I'm almost positive I would hear it if I tried to claim Trump had no responsibility for the Armenian genocide.

I may have to try it and see how far it goes.

How about just looking at the evidence and going with what it shows? 

You should try that.  Warning, it requires that you set aside your bias.

She made more than a few mistakes and some of them weren't very minor.  He also made more than a few mistakes, and at least one was quite major.

Or.., better idea...you should try to understand how and why they use it.

I am done trying to reason with you on this.   Here is a third party weighing in:

Forensic video analysis makes the part of gathering and analyzing evidence in crime cases a lot better. It lets detailed information be taken from video images, which can be used as proof in court and be very helpful in solving cases. Video analysis’s clarity and accuracy make it possible to accurately identify individuals and events, which has a big effect on the outcome of criminal cases.  

salvationdata

You can believe that a frame-by-frame forensic analysis is of marginal utility.   It is laughably absurd, but that does not surprise me.   It would be amusing to watch you attempt to put forth this nonsense to professionals.

She made more than a few mistakes and some of them weren't very minor.  He also made more than a few mistakes, and at least one was quite major.

Nothing she did warrants being killed.

The officer clearly blatantly violated protocol and killed a human being.

observe them committing a federal crime.

Obstructing is a federal crime."

The ICE agents had no reason to believe that she was either a immigrant or had committed a federal crime and therefore had no authority to tell her to exit the vehicle.

None.

They were creating the whole scene. Not her. She had just dropped her kid at school. She wasn't some type of vagabond road warrior. "

You actully swallowed that drivel. Multiple news reports from various sources.....and even Joyless Reid said she was an ICE warrior. I won't go into what else she said about her but from her, you can pretty much be assured it was racist. 

"The truck that pulled up on the other side? She actually was waving it on."

Because it was not an ICE vehicle.

"nd then you go and post something like that drivel above and some fools or ill-informed people might just believe it"

Holy shit....dripping with irony.

I am done trying to reason with you on this.

It's hilarious that you think that's what you're doing.

You can believe that a frame-by-frame forensic analysis is of marginal utility.   It is laughably absurd, but that does not surprise me.   It would be amusing to watch you attempt to put forth this nonsense to professionals.

All of those professionals know better than to use it the way you're trying to.

As I have already said... it is useful for certain things.  It is practically useless for judging the thought processes of an individual in a real-time, split second, high stress situation. 

If you're going to make an assertion about whether or not a person made a "reasonable" decision, you would have to know the inputs they received.  Most of those are not available on video.  I don't understand how that's not obvious.

Frame by frame sports analysis can tell you if a receiver was in bounds when he caught a ball or where the ball was when a knee hit the ground or whether a jump shot left the hand prior to the clock elapsing. 

It cannot tell you what was going on in the mind of a player... what potential threats he perceived, what pain he felt, what level of endurance he was operating with, how much adrenaline was in his bloodstream or what effect it had.

We can watch frame by frame video of DeCarlos Brown stabbing Iryna Zarutska.  That does nothing to tell us about his state of mind, whether he was hallucinating, on drugs, or what his blood pressure or glucose levels might have been.  You can watch video of what happened.  You can't watch video of somebody's state of mind.

Nothing she did warrants being killed.

I agree with that.  

The officer clearly blatantly violated protocol and killed a human being.

I agree with that.  

I do think that our tendency in modern society is to be so overcome with the active failures we see that we ignore the latent failures that made it possible.  We tend to focus on the shiny object in front of us and forget to think about how it came into being.

My question is still... how do we keep this incident from becoming the first of many?

It cannot tell you what was going on in the mind of a player... what potential threats he perceived, what pain he felt, what level of endurance he was operating with, how much adrenaline was in his bloodstream or what effect it had

  This is what I see as one of the largest problems with Trumps' new 'Army' of ICE agents that he has enticed with monetary incentives and bonuses, as well as lack of requirement to be hired as an ICE agent. Orange you glad one need only be barely literate, thorough background checks are apparently optional, as all one needs is to be angry at immigrants, legal or ill.

  With Trumps pardoning of Jan 6th Criminals, and total disregard for accepted norms and rules of law, these recruits are showing why they needlessly drop people, and many a jaw. 

  Trumps 'normalization' of his white insecurities that produce stereotypical discrimination against anyone with slightly more pigment than say Edgar Winter, and it has exposed so many who had hid their racist views, as before Trump they were viewed as unacceptable in todays twenty-first century beliefs in todays America, but now Trump has somehow made it 'ok' to be a prejudiced potUS and any and all citizens under he. 

  The MSM medias of the world, purveyors of proactive provocative purely partisan propaganda have been pathetically prepping peoples with preposterous exaggerations about the harm inflicted by peep holes seen coming from 'shit hole' nations, while common sense went on extended vacations. Immigrants have been portrayed as almost the sole reason so many US citizens are having a Hell of a time trying to live the American Dream, and with the Republican Party allowing the mental deficient leader to push, what many of them had previously stated, that it was the influx of migrants, that was the main cause of their problems. Poor immigrants without much more than the clothes on their backs had somehow stolen elections, jobs, and opportunities from a entitled group of improperly educated US citizens. Somehow the economically down trodden were given immigrants to blame for their misfortunes.

  It could never be the Rich manipulating oligarchy that deterined this counties path, and they have been quite succesful at selling LIES to the American Public.

  Now due to low standards that enabled agents to slip into the ICE ocean of improperly trained and quite possibly ethically and morally challenged new Trump 'Army' to do his bidding of terrorization of the American citizenry, and almost exclusively against blue voting areas of this once great country. 

  The shooter most likely had ptsd from his prior altercations in removing non legal citizens, as he is reportedly involved in an incident where he was drug by a vehicle and received 30 or so stitches. His actions look to me like revenge tactics as he broke from protocol with his actions by standing in front of vehicle and with his  pre-instantaneous un-holstering of weapon and then using said weapon instead of just stepping aside.

  These agents do NOT APPEAR to be the best and the brightest, more like Trump supporting prejudicial peons being used by Trump and his sycophant psycho administration of fealty felons, using fake reasons and fraudsters to disrupt and corrupt, a once Great America, that the GOP seems determined to defeat.

 So far so good

Look Jack. Blocking the road is wrong (albeit a form of protest-will leave it up to others to determine if it is 'permissible'), and it should not be a death sentence. We will leave the blocking up to debate. 

However, the officer is WRONG to have 'landed' where he does in front of the vehicle can we establish this? (The officer did not give himself enough 'clearance' for the vehicle to swing wide if it needed to to clear his 'spot').

Now this, after shooting the driver through the front windshield. . . clearly the shot 'had' to land in her because of the position of entry. Okay, so may be it could have missed her.

FINALLY, something I do not see as listed by anybody yet:

WHAT POSSIBLE JUSTIFICATION CAN THERE BE FOR SHOOTING (NO AIM) TWO SHOTS THROUGH THE DRIVER SIDE WINDOW. . . WITH A PASSENGER (others)  SITTING IN THE FRONT PASSENGER SEAT and OTHERS (a dog -"child-member')  ON THE BACK SEAT?

I agree with some of that you said here, and disagree with some. 

I don't really know what the entry requirements are for new ICE agents, but the speed with which they've been deployed certainly leaves open the question of how well could they possibly have been trained in such a short time.

I'm also not sure what percent of enforcement activity is actually concentrated in "blue" areas. That may be the case, I don't know, but I've had ICE agents on my street in suburban Texas.  You just don't hear about it because we're not starting fights with them.  

You just don't hear about it because we're not starting fights with them.  

This is something many on the left need to learn.

It's hilarious that you think that's what you're doing.

A feeble nuh-uh.  

All of those professionals know better than to use it the way you're trying to.

You are denying facts left and right. 

It is practically useless for judging the thought processes of an individual in a real-time, split second, high stress situation. 

STRAWMAN          You keep arguing against a point I did not make .       Try addressing the point I did make .

I have never claimed that this will shed light on the thought process (the mind) of an individual.   I have repeatedly stated that legally what the person believes is insufficient.   I have noted that (per written protocol) the belief must be reasonable and that is something that is determined by the circumstances.

Enter forensic video to get the details to better understand the circumstances and to determine if it was reasonable for this officer to believe that he should use lethal force per protocol and the law.

My question is still... how do we keep this incident from becoming the first of many?

First step is to hold accountable those who cross the line and all too willingly use lethal force.   That will not happen if an administration buries the situation and if supporters serve as accomplices to a travesty of justice.

Another step is to properly vet these ICE agents.   Trump more than doubled the size of ICE and based upon how he operates, the likelihood of improper vetting and poor training is high.

Here is another thought: never use lethal force on an unarmed citizen, even if she is in a car and you have the option to just step aside and be clear of her path.   ( He was clear of her path anyway .)

Finally, recognize that when government sends in masked, armed officers in a public way, disrupting communities, that will incite the people.   History is crystal clear in this regard.   If Trump were doing what he promised and going after rapists/murderers/drug dealers/... and NOT just people who are perceived to be illegal, the public reaction would be substantially different.

But he is not doing so and is instead raising the temperature and furthering the divisiveness in our nation.

Just one example of Texas protests:

‘Things are getting very scary’: Protesters march in San Antonio against ICE actions

Jerry Clayton /  Texas Public Radio  Protesters at Main Plaza in San Antonio

Hundreds gathered Saturday afternoon in downtown San Antonio for a rally and march protesting recent actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after the fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.

Jerry Clayton   Texas Public Radio  Sign depicting ICE agents arresting Jesus at San Antonio rally and march 1/10/2026

Among the demonstrators at Main Plaza was Alex Longoria-Mendoza, who said she hopes the protests lead to real change.

“Well, that’s why I’m here — because I would like to be the change that I’d like to see in the world. But right now, things are just getting very scary … change for the worse, not for the better, which is why I’m out here,” she told TPR.

Jerry Clayton  /  Texas Public Radio    Rally and march in downtown San Antonio 1/10/2026

Another protester, Trevor Balmer, said he’s worried about the direction of the country.

“To me it seems that America is a place where we should be able to express and exercise our opinions and freely live our lives, but that does not seem to be the direction that this administration wants to take our country,” he said.

Jerry Clayton  /  Texas Public Radio  Sign at protest in downtown San Antonio 1/10/2026

Kelly Trout said she is “terrified” by recent events involving ICE agents.

“I feel like it’s just like Germany in the 1930s. We have secret police,” she said. “How is that possible in America?”

After speakers addressed the crowd, demonstrators marched through downtown San Antonio as the San Antonio Police Department temporarily closed several intersections.

The nationwide protests were prompted by the Jan. 7 shooting death of Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis. Federal officials say an ICE agent opened fire after Good used her vehicle in a way they considered a threat, though local leaders and civil rights advocates have questioned that account and are calling for an independent investigation.

Demonstrations have since spread to cities across the country, with protesters demanding greater accountability from immigration authorities and changes to how federal enforcement operations are carried out.

tpr

Look Jack. Blocking the road is wrong (albeit a form of protest-will leave it up to others to determine if it is 'permissible'), and it should not be a death sentence.

I don't think she should have been killed.  I do think she probably should have been arrested for obstruction before it ever got as far as it did.

I also don't think that we should be using phrases like "death sentence" or "execution" that carry the implication that this was a premeditated act somehow ordered by some official somewhere.  I've seen no evidence whatsoever to suggest this is anything more than a single officer making a series of poor decisions. 

However, the officer is WRONG to have 'landed' where he does in front of the vehicle can we establish this?

I've already said that.  Standing in front of a hostile vehicle is moronic on several levels.  It's moronic when protesters block traffic and it's even more moronic here.  It is surely against protocol for situations like these.

Can we also establish she was wrong for starting to drive off while he was there?  If these roles were reversed and he bumped her with a squad car, we would be accusing him of recklessness.  If she had done this to a civilian, her insurance company would have to pay out.

My goal here is to force the consideration of more realistic evaluations of the events. 

For example, you just said "no aim".  Clearly he aimed well enough to kill this woman, so I don't think that's a realistic evaluation.  However you also raise the point of possible injury to innocent passengers of the car, which is a very valid and realistic assessment.

The reality as I see it is that both of these people made a series of bad decisions leading up to this, and we're only seeing the last ones on video.

The reality as I see it is that both of these people made a series of bad decisions leading up to this, and we're only seeing the last ones on video.

I agree. This is why I have been hesitant to weigh in on this (also there is the noise factor going on 'pervasively' of whistles, horns, and shouting). That said, Rene Nichols Good is the one that is dead and does need some form (return) of justice to her family.

See 2.2.119.

Yeah.  Affirming my point about realistic evaluations of events.  

People get emotional and that makes them stupid.

Another protester, Trevor Balmer, said he’s worried about the direction of the country. “To me it seems that America is a place where we should be able to express and exercise our opinions and freely live our lives, but that does not seem to be the direction that this administration wants to take our country,” he said.

Who's going to remind him that he said this at a public protest and was not arrested for it?  It needs to be someone besides me, because I'm not going to be able to avoid calling him things like "dumbass" and "fuckwit".

Kelly Trout said she is “terrified” by recent events involving ICE agents. “I feel like it’s just like Germany in the 1930s. We have secret police,” she said. “How is that possible in America?”

Oh FFS.  This is what happens when we lower standards in schools.   

Why is it that the very worst moments for every movement come when the participants are interviewed?   

What means your dispassionate remarks? People 'respond' to what causes them stress or strain or both. Thus, we have to find out if there is any merit(s) to those complains. . . . The simple act of protesting (as long as it does not go to far. . . which by the way. . .the constitution does not stipulate how far a 'model' protest can go causing states to set individual standards I suppose) is permitted under our constitution. 

Of course there are people who FEEL no form of protest is justifiable against their personal worldview in regards to the rest. 

Can ICE be subjected to protest, of course, protests are legal under the constitution for any thing the process decides. The burden is on officials and protesters, individually and collectively to be AWARE of the lengths permissible by law to avoid TRANGRESSING THE LAW and TRANSGRESSING AUTHORITY.

Finally, when an egregious 'violator' is found among the protesters actions and the authorities reactions the proper 'head/s' involved could be subject to public judgement and condemnation. 

We will have to see in 2026 elections if what people of the country really wanted is an agency of the federal government TRAMPLING down those raised voices of the country.

Separate insight. Trump has signaled (virtue) he wants figuratively and literally heads knocked, toes pained, and even implied worse more ("we got your back (pardon power if needed too) for people who interfere with his "official" actions on the streets of cities. To which I remind him. . . we are not his children to make mind (obey) him.

People get emotional and that makes them stupid.

Of course, people get emotional (or passionate) about issues involving. . . people. It's the human thing to do! As MAGA supporters get passionate about their issues. . .or we would not have lived the EXPERIENCE of January 6, 2021 (and have it further MEMORIALIZED in 2026). This year (alone) some five years out MAGA supporters met up at the White House and marched to the Capital in remembrance of the prior riot and death of Ashley Babbitt. MAGA supporters can EMOTE when it suits them. Moreover, it is REALISTIC to do so!

Let's do our best to be CONSISTENT when making 'digs.'

“To me it seems that America is a place where we should be able to express and exercise our opinions and freely live our lives, but that does not seem to be the direction that this administration wants to take our country,” he said.

Who's going to remind him that he said this at a public protest and was not arrested for it?

The rally taking place in San Antonio was after the shooting of Rene Good in Minneapolis. There is the context. Thus, Ms. Good was shot several times and died on the scene for her 'contribution' to the protest. She was not arrested or sent 'packing.' The administration's strident policy of 'bagging' migrants/immigrants came to an intersection with the life and living personhood of Ms. Good and rudely ended. Judgement and determinations on who is at fault, notwithstanding.

Thus, we have to find out if there is any merit(s) to those complains. 

That depends very much on the complaint.

If the complaint is that the president is overstepping legal authority or that ICE agents are violating protocols or that we as a nation need to think differently about immigration, then sure, let's talk about whether there is merit.

If the complaint is something like "we're not allowed to express our opinions" or ""it's just like Nazi Germany" or "we're being targeted by Jewish space lasers" or "property is theft" or "milk is violence", then no. We already know those claims are without merit and we're not helping anyone by enabling this behavior.

Of course, people get emotional (or passionate) about issues involving. . . people.

Why would it be limited to that?

There is a massive difference between passionate and emotional, btw.

It's the human thing to do! As MAGA supporters get passionate about their issues.

I'm so glad you brought it up.  

They also get emotional.

If you watch, you'll notice that's when they say they say the stupidest things.

I think we are stating the same or similar thing using different wording. 

There is a massive difference between passionate and emotional, btw.

Not in this case. . . the distinction is irrelevant. . . passion (which is deep feelings) and emotion (which is feeling often driven by passion).  As far as people saying stupid things. . . then some MAGA supporters are emotional all the time. Steven Miller is a study in emotional reaction to current events. 

That said, we all get emotional when appropriately stressed and strained. Experiment: Slam somebody else fingers hard in a door jamb and see s/he displays an emotional reaction.

Not in this case. . . the distinction is irrelevant. . . passion (which is deep feelings) and emotion (which is feeling often driven by passion).

Respectfully, I think the distinction is significant, at least in the way I interpret the words.

Passion is commonly used to represent an intense enthusiasm or interest for something.  For example, I might be passionate about a hobby or a collection of something or an author or type of music.  That's very different from being emotional about those things.

That said, we all get emotional when appropriately stressed and strained.

I think so, yeah.  And that stress and strain usually interferes with our ability to see things clearly and make rational decisions.

Is passion an emotion?

Is passion an emotion?

Interesting word study.  

Keeping in mind that both of these words have multiple definitions and uses, I don't know. 

A "crime of passion" is a crime driven by emotion, but that emotion is probably anger or despair.  So is "passion" an emotion in and of itself?  Hmmm.  Not sure.

Is passion an emotion? Yes or No.

passion /păsh′ən/

noun

Was he hit?

Was he ran over?

Because it was not an ICE vehicle.

Where was the vehicle that was stuck in the snow, like Noem said? Not one video shows it...weird. 

The wife could just release her video and defeat this evil coverup.  

Not sure that would mean much.  Remember she was too busy recording ICE agent to even know a violation of Minnesota 609.066 was being committed.

Odd that you would post this.   The content of your link:

Remember she was too busy recording ICE agent to even know a violation of Minnesota 609.066 was being committed.

Come on Jeremy. They are bitching and trying to make the claim the agent was out of the way before he shot her, not acknowledging the fact that he was hit first before he fired the shots, not to mention that Frey himself acknowledged that she hit him. Something else the left here is trying to cover saying he was only joking.

There are those here who would still bitch if he was laying under the car and fired shots, claiming it was too late to fire them as the damage to him was already done. 

Jokers gonna joke

... not acknowledging the fact that he was hit first before he fired the shots ...

Show it.   Back up your bullshit claim.

Not sure that would mean much

It almost certainly puts her and her wife in an even worse light. If it helped clear Good's name, it almost certainly would have been released. Occam's razor.

Wow,,,,

They are bitching and trying to make the claim the agent was out of the way before he shot her,

Well, they do have a point.  He WAS out of the way.  The fact that it was because he was hit by a fkng car is what they are ignoring.

his use of deadly force is NOT reasonable .

Re-read the FIRST SENTENCE of the law.

I think DHS put out a statement that the agent suffered from internal bleeding because of the impact. That could mean anything from a bruise to severe bleeding.

Either way...cue up the leftist poutrage over the report

I saw something saying he sustained arm and leg injuries from it incident.

Re-read the FIRST SENTENCE of the law.

You should read it:

For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm.

Get it?   An officer cannot use deadly force simply because of a belief.   That belief must be reasonable.   If this were not part of the law then every officer could get away with killing anyone by simply stating that they believed their life was in danger.

The word 'reasonably' is operative.   And I have been emphasizing that all along, so pay attention.

I'd say getting hit by a car constitutes the reasonable threat causing bodily harm.  Especially when the officer was treated at a medical center for injuries caused by Good.  But hey, what are facts when you have a pathetic partisan narrative to push.

CBS made a report on that. And now since CBS belongs to trmp it's just another Fox News fake news report

you may have seen it but do you remember where you saw it?

officer was treated at a medical center for injuries caused by Good.

link?

I do.  You can google it just like I did.

no, Jeremy, this is not how this works. You made the claim you need to back it up

this is not how this works

Just checked.  I don't care.  

You made the claim you need to back it up

Just using the tactics I've seen from many on the left here on NT.  Suddenly that's a bad thing?

It has been reported that he was treated for internal bleeding but there are no actual hospital details. 

so..reported but no actual facts

I know CBS reported on something like this but the only time I give CBS any of my attention is at 3 AM when I need some news...like the weather

How about the reality of an officer NOT getting hit by a car that was turning away from him?   Does that justify lethal force?

Your posts will, I predict, continue to pretend that this officer was hit by the vehicle even when clear video shows that his feet were away from the vehicle and that the vehicle was turning down the road away from him.

Watch this very clear video:  

Not only does this show her wheels toward the road, and that even after being shot, her car continued down the road (and was clearly NOT directed at the agent).

People often get internal bleeding from knocking into the refrigerator door so it's not  a surprise. 

If some credible source says he was treated for internal bleeding I will consider it.   There is no one in this administration I would believe on its own say so. No one. 

CBS just repeated what administration sources had told them. 

yep

And now since CBS belongs to trmp it's just another Fox News fake news report

Is MSN fake news?

bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d388411d8df860ac807b5daf6bce87448654256645ba1e566922abea4c3da2edJmltdHM9MTc2ODM0ODgwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=19d672cd-89dd-69db-29ed-66f988b16822&psq=ice+gent+internal+bleeding&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubXNuLmNvbS9lbi11cy9uZXdzL3BvbGl0aWNzL21pbm5lYXBvbGlzLWljZS1zaG9vdGluZy1saXZlLXVwZGF0ZXMtYWdlbnQtd2hvLXNob3QtZ29vZC1zdWZmZXJlZC1pbnRlcm5hbC1ibGVlZGluZy9hci1BQTFVM2c5OQ&ntb=1

Is Yahoo fake news?

DHS claims that ICE agent who shot Renee Good suffered ‘internal bleeding’ after the confrontation  

Is The Independent fake news?

DHS claims ICE agent who shot Renee Good was left with ‘internal bleeding’ | The Independent

Is the Baltimore Sun fake news?

Report says ICE agent in Minneapolis shooting suffered internal bleeding

Every single one of those links leads back to the word of DHS officials. 

Every single one of those links leads back to the word of DHS officials.

And?

The claim was made that since it was CBS that reported the story, Trump now owns CBS.

Nothing about what was actually in the article.

no, Jeremy, this is not how this works. You made the claim you need to back it up

[✘]

You are the one who put up four links as if they mean something.  All four of them trace back to the CBS story. 

ou are the one who put up four links as if they mean something

All four of them are left wing publications.

I asked if all four are fake news because they published essentially the same story as CBS, in which she claimed is now fake news.

reported but no actual facts

ICE agent who shot Renee Good suffered internal bleeding, officials say

That could mean injury from muzzle blast or mishandling his service weapon.  Those slides on automatic pistols can cause bruises (which is internal bleeding).  Or Ross could have ruptured himself hurrying into position.

Suffering internal bleeding doesn't mean it was caused by Good driving into Ross.  There are a host of other possible causes besides being struck by a vehicle.  Ross' own cellphone footage doesn't the type of accelerated movement that would be expected if Ross had been struck.

People aren't as stupid as "officials" would like them to be.

The Trump administration is corrupt.   This is how corruption works.   Propaganda.

Rational minds need to look at the evidence and not just blindly accept what a corrupt administration claims.

This corrupt administration is also impeding honest fact-finding (feds cut off state investigators from case materials, scene evidence, and key interviews).   They blocked the state from investigating, and the DoJ is trying to strangle the federal investigation (will not open a criminal investigation).   This is a level of corruption that most citizens of the USA have not seen in our nation.

Or Ross, recognizing that he just violated protocol and killed a human being, intentionally banged (and this would take quite a bit of force to cause internal bleeding) his hip on the floor or a wall.

Because it is clear as day that he was not hit by that vehicle.    And he is not some delicate little flower that would have internal bleeding as a result of the voluntary leg movements he engaged in while shooting Good.

People aren't as stupid as "officials" would like them to be.

I am afraid too many are indeed that stupid.

I am afraid too many are indeed that stupid.

None of this is unprecedented.  Janet Reno provides a more recent example with the Waco siege of the Branch Davidian compound and the the deployment of militarized Federal law enforcement to Ruby Ridge where they shot and killed a woman.  (Those big, tough, macho Federal law men love to shoot women, it seems. Maybe it is what they train for?)

Janet Reno's handling of the Branch Davidian BBQ and Rudy Ridge extrajudicial murder supposedly radicalized Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City.  

The TEA Party Republicans never understood that their rando machismo shit changes the narrative away from whatever they're fighting.  The protests are no longer about immigration.  The protests are now about removing Federal troops.  The TEA Party tactics have turned ICE into a much bigger threat than illegal immigrants.

Americans have a tendency to resist hobnail boots marching into their communities.  ICE agents are now being directly attacked.  How long before the 2nd amendment reverts to its original purpose?

People often get internal bleeding from knocking into the refrigerator door so it's not  a surprise. 

If he is that fragile, should he be in ICE? Probably not.  

And?

Noem is a proven liar. 

Propaganda

Yeah we saw that under the Biden Adminstration. But I'll give you credit, you didn't go the moronic "fascist" route [deleted]

[✘] Rational minds need to look at the evidence and not just blindly accept what a corrupt administration claims

[deleted]

[✘] This corrupt administration

As somebody earlier cried about in 2.3.16 .....provide a link to back up your claim.

I do not see this as incompetence, rather it is corruption.

Noem is doing Trump's bidding.   Trump takes no blame and will lie at every opportunity.   An outrageous lie is perfectly acceptable to Trump.

Noem is doing what she was hired to do ... do Trump's bidding and lie her ass off when necessary.

I do not see this as incompetence, rather it is corruption.

Kristi Noem is too fucking stupid to be corrupt.  An idiot that doesn't realize a judgement based on fabricated explanations of events wouldn't be refuted with real evidence is too fucking stupid to be corrupt.  Noem doesn't seem to be aware that the public can see what is going on.

Donald Trump has always surrounded himself with incompetent people so that he looks like a genius.  

Donald Trump has always surrounded himself with incompetent people so that he looks like a genius. 

And yet, he still looks like an asshole

Kristi Noem is following marching orders from Trump.   Her choice is to be corrupt or to be fired.   She chose to be corrupt.

The Trump administration is full of bad apples, but Noem is the bottom of the barrel. 

but Noem is the bottom of the barrel. 

Gotta wonder if Trumped bobbed for her...