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

[Bitterhook]

One illegal got away. How awful.

Especially since that never happened, because the ICE Agents weren't even there to apprehend an illegal.
And yes, it is absolutely awful someone died in attempts to accomplish nothing of value to anyone, as well as being absolutely unnecessary and completely senseless.

But that tends to happen when all someone has are emotions and desires without the ability to actually think about anything, come up with any kind of productive response, and are limited to nothing more than very tragic unrealistic expectations.

Because you know what, the heart will make you ignore some pretty obvious shit and do some really stupid things.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When a police officer gives an order to anyone that isn't involved in a serious crime, he or she always needs to give at least a minute of time for the person to comply with the order, before rushing to apprehend. They didn't give Good any time at all.

liar

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

liar

Common sense is difficult for you, I see.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Common sense is difficult for you, I see.

you wouldnt know what that is

 

[2aguy]

He walked in front of the car after he had an argument with the Wife at the passenger's side. You can see that from his video.

This is a complete violation of standard practices.

No....the video from the security camera across the street shows you are wrong.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 1205196

Moron...that is what the democrats said during obama and biden......they sent the FBI to investigate parents at School board meetings, and at church......you dumb ass..

 

[2aguy]

Instead of that and rushing to her door to remove her physically, the agents should have calmly asked her to move. There was absolutely no harm done at that point. Give her plenty of time to move before going crazy on her.

She sat there for over 3 minutes blocking them.....they told her to exit the vehicle, and she fled......that is a felony.

Then, she chose to back up and flee the scene.....she chose to do that.....you moron.

 

[2aguy]

When a police officer gives an order to anyone that isn't involved in a serious crime, he or she always needs to give at least a minute of time for the person to comply with the order, before rushing to apprehend. They didn't give Good any time at all.

Are you this stupid in real life........don't answer that, your posts tell us all we need to know.

The agent told her to exit the vehicle, in response, she threw the car in reverse and tried to flee the scene.......she did that...

 

[Bitterhook]

Common sense is difficult for you, I see.

You are an excellent example of "common sense" and how it is often completely devoid of any actual sense because stupid people think their emotions and desires are a sufficient replacement for any kind of realistic thought, and there are a lot of stupid people therefore making it common.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

She sat there for over 3 minutes blocking them.....they told her to exit the vehicle, and she fled......that is a felony.

Then, she chose to back up and flee the scene.....she chose to do that.....you moron.

The moron is someone who always avoids what is being addressed like you did here. During that 3 minutes, they hadn't told her to move. Only when they jumped out and rushed did they say that.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Sane people dont run cops over. Sane people will however run from cops, so they stand in front.

Only an idiot would recommend police stand in front of an idling car.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

When he shot her, she had not yet turned. The bullet went through the front windshield.

So the bullet went through the windshield sideways at an extreme angle, fired from the side of the car.

 

[2aguy]

The moron is someone who always avoids what is being addressed like you did here. During that 3 minutes, they hadn't told her to move. Only when they jumped out and rushed did they say that.

Yeah...they did........and besides, none of that matters when they told her to exit the vehicle......when she refused, she was breaking the law......

When she decided to drive at the officer with her SUV that was another felony.

 

[OldFlame]

Only an idiot would recommend police stand in front of an idling car.

So the police here were perfectly within their rights? Cause only idiots stand in front of an idling car and get what they deserve.

 

[2aguy]

Only an idiot would recommend police stand in front of an idling car.

He didn't ......the video shows this...

From the other social media site....

=========

Dickie Osbourne

Officer in front of the vehicle explained

Officer position

Focusing only on the officer’s physical positioning, the law gives him wide latitude to choose where he believes he is safest in that moment, and courts have consistently refused to second-guess those positioning decisions after the fact.

An officer is not required to remain static, retreat, or place himself in a position that increases danger simply to avoid later criticism. If the officer was in plain view of the driver, had already identified himself, and the driver failed to comply, the officer was legally entitled to reposition in response to the evolving threat. That includes moving away from the rear of the vehicle if the vehicle began backing up, because an accelerating vehicle in reverse presents the same deadly-force risk as one moving forward.

Courts have repeatedly recognized that vehicles are capable of inflicting lethal force in any direction of movement.
Standing at or near the front left fender, rather than directly in front of the vehicle or directly behind it, is not inherently reckless or unlawful. From a legal standpoint, what matters is whether the officer’s movement was a reasonable response to the perceived threat at that instant. Officers are allowed to move laterally, angle off a vehicle, and attempt to clear the direct line of travel while still maintaining visual control of the driver. The law does not require an officer to perfectly predict where a vehicle will move, nor does it require the officer to freeze once contact has been initiated.


Courts have also rejected the argument that an officer “creates the danger” simply by approaching or positioning himself near a vehicle during a lawful stop. In multiple federal cases, judges have held that an officer does not forfeit the right to defend himself merely because he chose to approach a suspect or reposition during an encounter. The critical question remains whether, at the moment force was used, the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. The fact that an officer was moving, walking around the car, or transitioning away from one danger zone into another does not negate that analysis.


Importantly, courts do not evaluate these movements with a diagram and a pause button. They evaluate them as fluid, continuous actions occurring in seconds. An officer who sees a driver fail to comply, then back up, is not obligated to move behind the vehicle, especially if doing so would place him in the path of a reversing car. Choosing a front-quarter position that keeps the driver in view while attempting to clear the vehicle’s path can be a reasonable survival decision, even if commentators later argue that some other position might have been safer.

This is exactly where hindsight analysis is prohibited. After the fact, it is easy to freeze the video, draw lines, and argue optimal positioning. The law does not permit that. It asks whether a reasonable officer, facing a non-compliant driver in control of a moving vehicle, could reasonably believe that repositioning to the front left fender was safer than remaining behind the car or directly in its path. If the answer is yes, the officer’s positioning is legally defensible regardless of the tragic outcome.

In short, the officer was not legally required to stand behind a vehicle that had already begun backing up, nor was he required to disengage entirely. He was entitled to move, to angle off, and to place himself where he believed he had the greatest chance of survival while maintaining control of the encounter. Courts have been clear: those decisions belong to the officer in the moment, not to observers reconstructing the scene afterward.
===========

 

[2aguy]

So the police here were perfectly within their rights? Cause only idiots stand in front of an idling car and get what they deserve.

View attachment 1205228

Yep.......they were ordered out of the way....they refused....at this point officer safety is involved.....they could be blocking the officers to allow someone to shoot them in their car....

The Chicago Police Superintendant explains this...and defends ICE...

What price Snelling? | Power Line

www.powerlineblog.com

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

So the police here were perfectly within their rights? Cause only idiots stand in front of an idling car and get what they deserve.

View attachment 1205228

Yes, it is hard to describe just how stupid it is to remain in front of a car that is in operation.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Yeah...they did........and besides, none of that matters when they told her to exit the vehicle

No they didn't. There is no mention in this video of any warnings given during those 3 minutes.

 

[OldFlame]

Yes, it is hard to describe just how stupid it is to remain in front of a car that is in operation.

Glad you agree that protestors have no business being on roads or highways trying to impede traffic, and that is they get run over they deserve what they get. Especially since Good had her car placed in the middle of the road trying to impede traffic in this case as well, guess she got what she deserved.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only an idiot would recommend police stand in front of an idling car.

Especially a car with a nut job behind the wheel.