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

[Winco]

she was a threat she hit the officer

So you say.
Looks like the ICE agent is guilty of stepping in the path.......What an idiot.

Babbitt was a threat, she had a backpack, with who knows the contents.
Could have been a bomb or other weapons,
You think this woman intentionally tried to run over and harm the ICE agent........well, I disagree.
But that is the narrative they must present, so that is what we continually hear, regardless of the video evidence of her turning away........

But I get it.
They are already playing the lawyer games.

 

[Winco]

As has been pointed out over and over again, he did not put himself in front of the car......

So WAS he in front of the car or not?

If so, how did he get 'in front of the car'?

 

[2aguy]

Sorry, the ACTUAL video doesn't show her striking him. It shows this coward walking in front of her car and was bumped and then he executed her on the scene.

Yes...the actual video does.....

The second second video in this news segment shows her SUV hitting the agent...

 

[Superbadbrutha]

He didn't step in front of the car, you dumb ass....she changed the position of the car and that put him in front of the car...

He walked all the way around the car idiot.

 

[2aguy]

So WAS he in front of the car or not?

If so, how did he get 'in front of the car.'?

Only after she changed the position of the car....before that he was on the side of the car.....she moved the car. If you watch this video from across the street, you see him on the side near the corner of the car, she backs up and changes the angle of the car, putting him in her path.

 

[2aguy]

So you say.
Looks like the ICE agent is guilty of stepping in the path.......What an idiot.

Babbitt was a threat, she had a backpack, with who knows the contents.
Could have been a bomb or other weapons,
You think this woman intentionally tried to run over and harm the ICE agent........well, I disagree.
But that is the narrative they must present, so that is what we continually hear, regardless of the video evidence of her turning away........

But I get it.
They are already playing the lawyer games.

The video evidence shows she put him in danger, then hit him......

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Yes...the actual video does.....

The second second video in this news segment shows her SUV hitting the agent...

The car bumped this coward and in your stupid ass mind that justifies him shooting her in the face.

What are the rules of engagement in this case?

 

[2aguy]

He walked all the way around the car idiot.

Yeah.....once, then went back to his vehicle and stepped to the side of the car.......then she pulled back and changed the angle putting him in front of the vehicle...

Watch the actual video...besides the first video that doesn't show where he was...

 

[2aguy]

The car bumped this coward and in your stupid ass mind that justifies him shooting her in the face.

What are the rules of engagement in this case?

She ran him down....you shit stain...........

The rules of engagment say he was allowed to shoot her.....here, if you could read this might help....

======
As noted, Wallace was convicted of violating Sec. 111(b) — assault on a federal police officer while using a vehicle as a deadly weapon.

She did not strike the officer with the vehicle — he jumped on the hood to avoid behind hit.

Does this sound familiar?

The point is that Renee Good committed an aggravated felony against the ICE Officer before he drew his weapon and fired his first shot.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY STRUCK HIM WITH HER VEHICLE.

As the jury instruction states, the assault is complete “if the defendant’s conduct places the officer in fear for his life or safety…”

That means that when the ICE Officer fired his weapon, he was attempting to “seize” a fleeing felon. All uses of force — lethal and non-lethal — to immobilize a suspected criminal offender are “seizures.” The Fourth Amendment requires that seizures be “reasonable” in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

The use of deadly force is a reasonable seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes when engaged in for self-defense responding to conduct that is reasonably perceived by the officer to pose a threat of death or serious bodily injury to him or others around him.

This is the second legal point that is being widely mischaracterized on social media — the Officer’s perception of an imminent threat of death or bodily injury is not limited just to the threat to himself, it is what he perceives as a threat to himself AND others in his immediate vicinity and the broader community in the direction of the vehicle’s intended travel.
========

Minneapolis Is Not Even A Close Call --A Lawsplainer On Officer-Involved Shootings

The only perspective that matters is the perspective of the Officer at the time he uses deadly force in response to a threat.

shipwreckedcrew.substack.com

 

[Bitterhook]

But he put himself in front of her car....which is AGAINST their rules and protocol?

She didn't turn off the ignition and get out of the vehicle, decided to do something else and died because what she chose to do was left up to the interpretation of the people on the scene under their conditions and views from their exact locations, at the moment it occurred, and absolutely nothing else.

 

[2aguy]

She didn't turn off the ignition and get out of the vehicle, decided to do something else and died because what she chose to do was left up to the interpretation of the people on the scene, at the moment it occurred, and absolutely nothing else.

This article by a career prosecutor sums it up pretty well...

======
As noted, Wallace was convicted of violating Sec. 111(b) — assault on a federal police officer while using a vehicle as a deadly weapon.

She did not strike the officer with the vehicle — he jumped on the hood to avoid behind hit.

Does this sound familiar?

The point is that Renee Good committed an aggravated felony against the ICE Officer before he drew his weapon and fired his first shot.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY STRUCK HIM WITH HER VEHICLE.

As the jury instruction states, the assault is complete “if the defendant’s conduct places the officer in fear for his life or safety…”

That means that when the ICE Officer fired his weapon, he was attempting to “seize” a fleeing felon. All uses of force — lethal and non-lethal — to immobilize a suspected criminal offender are “seizures.” The Fourth Amendment requires that seizures be “reasonable” in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

The use of deadly force is a reasonable seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes when engaged in for self-defense responding to conduct that is reasonably perceived by the officer to pose a threat of death or serious bodily injury to him or others around him.

This is the second legal point that is being widely mischaracterized on social media — the Officer’s perception of an imminent threat of death or bodily injury is not limited just to the threat to himself, it is what he perceives as a threat to himself AND others in his immediate vicinity and the broader community in the direction of the vehicle’s intended travel.
========

Minneapolis Is Not Even A Close Call --A Lawsplainer On Officer-Involved Shootings

The only perspective that matters is the perspective of the Officer at the time he uses deadly force in response to a threat.

shipwreckedcrew.substack.com

 

[Winco]

The video evidence shows she put him in danger, then hit him......

Discuss.

1). In view of her car, as she the driver is looking forward., was Ross originally on the L or R side of her car or was he always in front of the car?

 

[Bitterhook]

This article by a career prosecutor sums it up pretty well...

======
As noted, Wallace was convicted of violating Sec. 111(b) — assault on a federal police officer while using a vehicle as a deadly weapon.

She did not strike the officer with the vehicle — he jumped on the hood to avoid behind hit.

Does this sound familiar?

The point is that Renee Good committed an aggravated felony against the ICE Officer before he drew his weapon and fired his first shot.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY STRUCK HIM WITH HER VEHICLE.

As the jury instruction states, the assault is complete “if the defendant’s conduct places the officer in fear for his life or safety…”

That means that when the ICE Officer fired his weapon, he was attempting to “seize” a fleeing felon. All uses of force — lethal and non-lethal — to immobilize a suspected criminal offender are “seizures.” The Fourth Amendment requires that seizures be “reasonable” in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment.

The use of deadly force is a reasonable seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes when engaged in for self-defense responding to conduct that is reasonably perceived by the officer to pose a threat of death or serious bodily injury to him or others around him.

This is the second legal point that is being widely mischaracterized on social media — the Officer’s perception of an imminent threat of death or bodily injury is not limited just to the threat to himself, it is what he perceives as a threat to himself AND others in his immediate vicinity and the broader community in the direction of the vehicle’s intended travel.
========

Minneapolis Is Not Even A Close Call --A Lawsplainer On Officer-Involved Shootings

The only perspective that matters is the perspective of the Officer at the time he uses deadly force in response to a threat.

shipwreckedcrew.substack.com

Thanks man,

But I can understand that it doesn't take a whole lot of articles to understand, the things that made the most difference to the outcome in the event, were precisely what Renee was thinking when she chose not to comply and drive in any direction whatsoever, and what was going through the agent's mind when he couldn't see any tires through the hood of the vehicle and made a split second decision of whether or not he was going to let her run over him or take action.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an imaginary world where we can all say, "Hey, everybody pause for a second. let's look at things, okay everybody let's get to the spots where we are supposed to be and do everything as it is supposed to be done."

But I get it, because that is way too simple and realistic for a lot of people to understand or accept.
It's called reality, it usually doesn't serve any nonsense on any side of the political aisle, and it doesn't require justification because it is simply what happened.

 

[2aguy]

Discuss.

1). In view of her car, as she the driver is looking forward., was Ross originally on the L or R side of her car or was he always in front of the car?

Watch the video....

When she is parked he walks around the car with his cell phone, when he gets to the passenger side he goes back to his car for a moment, then walks to the passenger side corner, he is not in front of the car at that point.

As he reached that point, she pulls back from the agent at the door, changing the alignment of the front of the car so that the agent is now in front of the car.........he didn't step in front of the car, she moved the car.....

Then if you go back and watch the very first video, from the drivers side with the agent holding the door handle, you see her back up, and the other agent isn't in front of the SUV till she turns the car...

 

[2aguy]

Thanks man,

But I can understand that it doesn't take a whole lot of articles to understand, the things that made the most difference to the outcome in the event, were precisely what Renee was thinking when she chose not to comply and drive in any direction whatsoever, and what was going through the agent's mind when he couldn't see any tires through the hood of the vehicle and made split second decision of whether or not he was going to let her run over him or take action.

Unfortunately, we don't live in an imaginary world where we can all say, "Hey, everybody pause for a second. let's look at things, okay everybody let's get to the spots where we are supposed to be and do everything as it is supposed to be done."

But I get it, because that is way too simple and realistic for a lot of people to understand or accept.

Yep.....he had a nano second to process that she was coming at him with the SUV.......not minutes of reviewing the entire event over and over on video slow mo....

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Yep.....he had a nano second to process that she was coming at him with the SUV.......not minutes of reviewing the entire event over and over on video slow mo....

.

One lame-ass poster here actually thinks they believe that he took the two steps back just before the SUV hits him because he thinks it makes him look good.




Bottomless stupid.




.

 

[Winco]

Watch the video....

When she is parked he walks around the car with his cell phone, when he gets to the passenger side he goes back to his car for a moment, then walks to the passenger side corner, he is not in front of the car at that point.

As he reached that point, she pulls back from the agent at the door, changing the alignment of the front of the car so that the agent is now in front of the car.........he didn't step in front of the car, she moved the car.....

Then if you go back and watch the very first video, from the drivers side with the agent holding the door handle, you see her back up, and the other agent isn't in front of the SUV till she turns the car...

OK,
I believe that video evidence puts the ICE officer, initially, on the passenger side of the vehicle.
He continues to move to HIS right (the drivers side) while she is parked, then her first move is to reverse.

Can we agree at this point?
When she starts to move, by reversing, where is the ICE agent?

Hey OhPleaseJustQuit, feel free to give a factual statement about the position of the ICE agent....
1). While she was parked.
2). The nanoseconds between parked and Reversing.
3). And when she started to reverse.

Simple information, from ANY angle, results are the same.
So what is your take on 1), 2), 3).

Don't be an ASS, just answer the question(s).


This will ALL be covered by LAWYERS,

 

[2aguy]

OK,
I believe that video evidence puts the ICE officer, initially, on the passenger side of the vehicle.
He continues to move to HIS right (the drivers side) while she is parked, then her first move is to reverse.

Can we agree at this point?
When she starts to move, by reversing, where is the ICE agent?

He isn't in front of her car. He is put in front of her car when she pulls back and turns it.......then, at this point, he is in front of his car and she clearly sees him in front of her car. How do we know? From his cell phone video....she is looking straight ahead, and she still accelerates the car.....

I think she thought she could get around him...but the adrenaline flooding her system distorted her vision and depth perception as well as her time perception.......and she hit him....

And.....none of that matters because she drove toward him, and he saw that he was in danger of being hit....which he was....she hit him...

 

[2aguy]

As to how many shots were fired....

from Elon musks site, from a poster with the name Shipwreckedcrew....

==========

How about if I let Justice Alito explain that one to you:

"We think our decision in Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194 (2004) (per curiam) squarely demonstrates that no clearly established law precluded petitioners’ conduct at the time in question. In Brosseau, we held that a police officer did not violate clearly established law when she fired at a fleeing vehicle to prevent possible harm to “other officers on foot who [she] believed were in the immediate area, . . . occupied vehicles in [the driver’s] path[,] and . . . any other citizens who might be in the area.... In Brosseau, an officer on foot fired at a driver who had just begun to flee and who had not yet driven his car in a dangerous manner...."

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots.

We reject that argument.

It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.

As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”9-0 decision in Plumhoff v. Rickard, 2014.
==========

 

[Bitterhook]

When she starts to move, by reversing, where is the ICE agent?

Which ICE Agent?

The one she is smiling at that is in her face and telling her to get out of the vehicle when she puts it in gear, or the one she probably doesn't even have a clue she is pointing her vehicle at when she makes the stupid mistake of thinking that isn't going to end tragically?