Breaking: Woman shot while trying to kill ICE agents in Minnesota

[el midgetron]

How can we even be sure Good identified as a woman? Perhaps the root cause of this incident is toxic-masculinity behind the wheel?

 

[buttercup]

j-mac , you're denying that the woman was shot?

Do you not understand that "shot" doesn't necessarily mean murdered? It just means shot. So why disagree with my statement that the title is factually correct and using neutral language now? It is.

 

[el midgetron]

These people are insufferable

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

These people are insufferable

They build each other up just to cut them down.

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

If the agent had been killed, these same people would be celebrating it.

(((Frey))), need I say more?

 

[Dagoth-Ur]

Yeah, God forbid a guy get mad at a person who literally just tried to kill him, right?

These people are degenerate faggots.

 

[krichton]

Which 'courts'? The Supreme Court says otherwise.
Fascinating, except ICE is part of DHS not DOJ. Try harder.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf?

On the contrary, past and present Supreme Court decisions are why we have the rules we currently have in place at local police departments and at the federal level, going back to 1980s. The most recent supreme court decision in Barnes V Felix, they unaminously rejected the, moment of threat argument, which says, "Only the last two seconds matter. If the officer was in danger at that instant, the shooting is reasonable — even if the officer created the danger.” This defense cannot be used.

The question here is whether that framework permits courts, in evaluating a police shooting (or other use of force), to apply the so-called moment-of-threat rule used in the courts below. Under that rule, a court looks only to the circumstances existing at the precise time an officer perceivedthe threat inducing him to shoot. Today, we reject that approach as improperly narrowing the requisite Fourth Amendment analysis. To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment. - Justice Kagan

If ICE was part of DOJ, being hit by a moving vehicle constitutes a threat to cause serious harm. You are not doing well here.

Federal agencies all follow the same rules and guidelines on deadly force, not only to have a more uniform code, but also to adhere to 4th Amendment protections. In the case of DHS, you can read below how they apply their guidelines.

2023 Update to the Department Policy on Use of Force | Homeland Security

Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Use of Force Policy as required by executive policy to Advance Effective, Accountable Policing and Strengthen Public Safety to meet or exceed the Department of Justice guidance on use of force.

www.dhs.gov

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Use of Force Policy as required by executive policy standards to Advance Effective, Accountable Policing and Strengthen Public Safety to meet or exceed the Department of Justice guidance on use of force.

 

[j-mac]

j-mac , you're denying that the woman was shot?

Do you not understand that "shot" doesn't necessarily mean murdered? It just means shot. So why disagree with my statement that the title is factually correct and using neutral language now? It is.

It's real simple...First, I am NOT denying anything. The woman, Good, was shot because she aimed an SUV at a Federal Law Enforcement agent, when she was being ordered to get out of the car.

Second, there is no way, unless you were inside her head, to know what the hell she was thinking. And I don't think anyone should surreptitiously just change a thread title, unless they give a heads up as to why, to the opening poster...In this case they just did it like cowards, to change the meaning of the title itself...It's wrong, and just as bad as myself changing a post of yours to say something totally different...

And lastly, they didn't change it to factually correct anything...This was a leftist mod in here misusing his power to change a title instead or debating the issue...If he was trying to be neutral, or factual, he'd have changed it to "hit".... NOT "avoid".... It was a snotty little move by an immature that can't stand when those he supports, does something so clearly violent, and he can't just admit it...

 

[krichton]

Not what his bodycam showed.

I believe he was using a cellphone. At the end of the day, the evidence doesn't lie. The car was not pointed at him in an attempt to run him over. He did not end up underneath the car. The car turned exactly where she was intending to flee to. Those are the facts. Everything else is just noise.

 

[Darlo kittu]

I believe he was using a cellphone. At the end of the day, the evidence doesn't lie. The car was not pointed at him in an attempt to run him over. He did not end up underneath the car. The car turned exactly where she was intending to flee to. Those are the facts. Everything else is just noise.

No evidence does not lie, but you people sure as hell do

The left and liberal media are heartbroken over the ICE agent shot the B rather then being her speed bump

 

[buttercup]

It's real simple...First, I am NOT denying anything. The woman, Good, was shot because she aimed an SUV at a Federal Law Enforcement agent, when she was being ordered to get out of the car.

Second, there is no way, unless you were inside her head, to know what the hell she was thinking. And I don't think anyone should surreptitiously just change a thread title, unless they give a heads up as to why, to the opening poster...In this case they just did it like cowards, to change the meaning of the title itself...It's wrong, and just as bad as myself changing a post of yours to say something totally different...

And lastly, they didn't change it to factually correct anything...This was a leftist mod in here misusing his power to change a title instead or debating the issue...If he was trying to be neutral, or factual, he'd have changed it to "hit".... NOT "avoid".... It was a snotty little move by an immature that can't stand when those he supports, does something so clearly violent, and he can't just admit it...

Your first 2 paragraphs are irrelevant to what I asked you. But in response to the third paragraph, that wording "avoid" was from YESTERDAY. They changed the title again, I'm not talking about yesterday's title, I was talking about the new one, today. The new one (that's there right now) is factually correct and neutral, are you denying that? If you gave me a thumbs down for another reason, then fine, whatever. But what I said was true.

 

[krichton]

It's real simple...First, I am NOT denying anything. The woman, Good, was shot because she aimed an SUV at a Federal Law Enforcement agent, when she was being ordered to get out of the car.

Second, there is no way, unless you were inside her head, to know what the hell she was thinking. And I don't think anyone should surreptitiously just change a thread title, unless they give a heads up as to why, to the opening poster...In this case they just did it like cowards, to change the meaning of the title itself...It's wrong, and just as bad as myself changing a post of yours to say something totally different...

And lastly, they didn't change it to factually correct anything...This was a leftist mod in here misusing his power to change a title instead or debating the issue...If he was trying to be neutral, or factual, he'd have changed it to "hit".... NOT "avoid".... It was a snotty little move by an immature that can't stand when those he supports, does something so clearly violent, and he can't just admit it...

Before she was shot, you can see her quickly turning her steering wheel in order to turn the car in the direction of the road, which is exactly where she ended up going. If someone is in front of your vehicle, you don't turn your wheel away from them, you just hit the accelerator.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I believe he was using a cellphone. At the end of the day, the evidence doesn't lie. The car was not pointed at him in an attempt to run him over. He did not end up underneath the car. The car turned exactly where she was intending to flee to. Those are the facts. Everything else is just noise.

.

One video clearly shows him taking two or three steps in an effort to get out of her path, and she still hit him.






.

 

[j-mac]

I believe he was using a cellphone. At the end of the day, the evidence doesn't lie. The car was not pointed at him in an attempt to run him over. He did not end up underneath the car. The car turned exactly where she was intending to flee to. Those are the facts. Everything else is just noise.

If you'd like to take that stance, I understand, and there is lots of "noise" surrounding this...But, here's the facts that you are missing,

1. It's up to the agent in question whether or not he felt he, or someone else was in danger by Good's reckless actions.

2. While he may not have been completely run over, the reports are that he went to the hospital with injury to his hip...So, that tells me that either the car, or the mirror made contact with him...In fact you can hear it on his video....

3. Lastly, she was being ordered out of the car. At least 3X that I heard...When you decide that you can ignore legal orders, you put your life in danger...Simple.

 

[Delldude]

I believe he was using a cellphone. At the end of the day, the evidence doesn't lie. The car was not pointed at him in an attempt to run him over. He did not end up underneath the car. The car turned exactly where she was intending to flee to. Those are the facts. Everything else is just noise.

You're not entitled to your own facts.

The Renee Good thread will totally refute your claim.

 

[j-mac]

Before she was shot, you can see her quickly turning her steering in order to turn the car in the direction of the road, which is exactly where she ended up going. If someone is in front of your vehicle, you don't turn your wheel away from them, you just hit the accelerator.

So, you're arguing that she can ignore orders, and be allowed to flee? Not to mention that regardless of her specific intent, the agent felt threatened by her reckless action, and was totally justified in defending himself.

 

[Muhammed]

They have a legal right to apprehend and remove illegals.

A right and an obligation.

 

[j-mac]

Your first 2 paragraphs are irrelevant to what I asked you. But in response to the third paragraph, that wording "avoid" was from YESTERDAY. They changed the title again, I'm not talking about yesterday's title, I was talking about the new one, today. The new one (that's there right now) is factually correct and neutral, are you denying that? If you gave me a thumbs down for another reason, then fine, whatever. But what I said was true.

Well, as long as YOU think you are. That's all that matters, right?

 

[krichton]

Some mistakes are fatal, perhaps you loons should reflect on that and stop interfering in federal law enforcement operations. They are performing their duties as laid out by Congress. You also ignore that traffic interference should fall to local police, but sanctuary policies prevented that. If you want to protect these criminals and terrorists you should lobby for local law enforcement to be involved so they coddle the lawless obstructionist and leave ICE to do their job.

Were you saying this when Jan 6ers were attacking the capitol building?

 

[j-mac]

Were you saying this when Jan 6ers were attacking the capitol building?

I was, I didn't like what they did....They handed you liars a pot of gold in misrepresenting what happened, and you've used it....I've always said that if you break the law, you open yourself up to these sorts of things....Full stop, end of story...

This is no different...Except, you dumb asses are trying to use it to further ramp up the violence...It's not going to end well for you morons.