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

[meaner gene]

Goode was not leaving, she was escaping the scene and this was only after they tried to get her out of her vehicle. Before that, they told her to move her vehicle because she was crossways in the street but she refused to do so.

Wait. They told her to leave, but she didn't leave right away.
But she complied with that order when they tried to grab her through the window.

That's an important fact.

 

[meaner gene]

What’s the lie? The video shows her hitting him.

I was giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t see him, but yoj might be right she might have and did it intentionally

Actually no video shows the vehicle striking the officer. In fact when combined the several videos show the office was clear of the vehicle as she drove off.
The only contact made was with Ross's hand holding his cell phone.

They analyzed the several videos from different angles.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Only people who didn't see the video analysis of what happened.

If you watched the video that was posted, the only contact betwen Good's SUV and the agent, was his hand holding his cellphone.

This is a form of post hoc fallacy. As I told Xpo, hindsight is 20/20.

Try telling any soldier that went into combat and came out unscathed that their life was never in danger.

 

[Dr Grump]

What’s the lie? The video shows her hitting him.

I was giving her the benefit of the doubt that she didn’t see him, but yoj might be right she might have and did it intentionally

It's all about context. She was turning away from him at a very low speed. Sure, if she was driving at him at 30mph or whatever, I don't think you'll get an argument from even the most ardent liberal that the self-defence strategy is a fair point to make (although there is an argument as to why he was in front of her in the first place - the number of YouTube videos I see where police talk about officer safety etc, and they NEVER go in front of a vehicle with a driver in it - ever). I think these ICE cowards (and I call them that because they are so invested and so convinced they are right, that they hide their faces <sarcasm for you MAGA rubes>) just lack basic training. And the dwarf who runs them, what a ******* idiot he is.

 

[meaner gene]

This is a form of post hoc fallacy. As I told Xpo, hindsight is 20/20.

Try telling any soldier that went into combat and came out unscathed that their life was never in danger.

Hindsight my be 20/20 but the facts don't change, even if they have to be determined long afterward.
They claimed the officer was struck by the vehicle, but the video shows he was clear of the vehicle.

We've seen things like this happen dozens of times. Where shortly after there's one claim of events. But after doing the forensics, a completely different truth is discovered.

And the analysis of the several videos, synced up, and from different angles gave a true picture.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

one tried to get her out, the other told her to leave. Totally on ICE. They need to sort their shit out. Still trying to figure out what their powers are.

Goode was an adult woman and she knew exactly what she was doing. She most certainly did not need an officer to tell her to move her vehicle or get out of it. She knew damn well that she was not supposed to stop there crossways in the street.

Jesus Christ, at what point was she not accountable for her actions, only after she got shot?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Hindsight my be 20/20 but the facts don't change, even if they have to be determined long afterward.
They claimed the officer was struck by the vehicle, but the video shows he was clear of the vehicle.

We've seen things like this happen dozens of times. Where shortly after there's one claim of events. But after doing the forensics, a completely different truth is discovered.

And the analysis of the several videos, synced up, and from different angles gave a true picture.

Again, post hoc fallacy. The glancing blow - or even if he wasn't struck at all - was sheer luck. She was a potential hazard the moment she panicked and punched the gas.

 

[meaner gene]

... and they NEVER go in front of a vehicle with a driver in it - ever). I think these ICE cowards (and I call them that because they are so invested and so convinced they are right, that they hide their faces <sarcasm for you MAGA rubes>) just lack basic training. And the dwarf who runs them, what a ******* idiot he is.

ICE officer training duration... standard programs (around 22-27 weeks total)

FBI training for new Special Agents at the Quantico Academy is a rigorous 20-week program

ICE officer training duration ... significantly shortened versions (as short as 47 days or 8 weeks for Deportation Officers) under the Trump administration,

No wonder they don't know what they're doing.

 

[Dr Grump]

Goode was an adult woman and she knew exactly what she was doing. She most certainly did not need an officer to tell her to move her vehicle or get out of it. She knew damn well that she was not supposed to stop there crossways in the street.

Jesus Christ, at what point was she not accountable for her actions, only after she got shot?

Oh, she is accountable for her actions. Tell me, when one person in authority tells you to do one thing (leave) and then a split second later another tells you something else, what do you do? I'm not saying either is right or wrong. She got mixed messages. Now she's dead. That being said, as an ex LEO, I'm telling you this Ross dude is an idiot on so many levels. There are many times when a LEO's life is in danger and the ultimate sanction occurs. This wasn't even close to reasonable in terms of killing her.

 

[Dr Grump]

ICE officer training duration... standard programs (around 22-27 weeks total)

FBI training for new Special Agents at the Quantico Academy is a rigorous 20-week program

ICE officer training duration ... significantly shortened versions (as short as 47 days or 8 weeks for Deportation Officers) under the Trump administration,

No wonder they don't know what they're doing.

My training as an LEO was six months, then on probation for 18 months. During training we had to get a minimum of 80 per cent on all our law exams, and we had to sit another 22 units after graduation. One a month - again a minimum of 80 per cent in each one. We were allowed to fail once (I did on one of my units - got 78 per cent, passed it with 95 second time around), and if we fail it gain we were canned.

 

[meaner gene]

Again, post hoc fallacy. The glancing blow - or even if he wasn't struck at all - was sheer luck. She was a potential hazard the moment she panicked and punched the gas.

You realize he was drawing his gun before she even started moving forward.

Law enforcement officers aren't supposed to draw their weapon, except when they intend to use it to protect human life.

Police officers are generally allowed to draw their weapons when they reasonably believe it's necessary for self-defense, to protect others from imminent death or serious injury, or to stop a dangerous crime, but only when less extreme measures are insufficient. The decision hinges on the officer's reasonable belief of an immediate threat, often involving suspects with weapons or posing a grave danger, with the act itself considered a significant escalation of force requiring careful justification, documentation, and adherence to department policies and legal standards.

 

[meaner gene]

As I tried to point out before.
They claimed Ross suffered "internal bleeding" as proof he was struck by a motor vehicle.
Except Ross was in full body armor, as per ICE regulations

https://imlive.s3.amazonaws.com/Federal%20Government/ID255426897069329047495080324203699905714/2.2.1_Attachment%2022%20-%20ICE%20Body%20Armor%20Policy.pdf

How did he suffer "internal bleeding" when wearing an outfit that can stop a .44 magnum.

 

[el midgetron]

Terrorizing people in the streets like this is what the Brown Shirts did.

 

[Dr Grump]

You realize he was drawing his gun before she even started moving forward.

Law enforcement officers aren't supposed to draw their weapon, except when they intend to use it to protect human life.

Police officers are generally allowed to draw their weapons when they reasonably believe it's necessary for self-defense, to protect others from imminent death or serious injury, or to stop a dangerous crime, but only when less extreme measures are insufficient. The decision hinges on the officer's reasonable belief of an immediate threat, often involving suspects with weapons or posing a grave danger, with the act itself considered a significant escalation of force requiring careful justification, documentation, and adherence to department policies and legal standards.

Our general instructions were that we were only allowed to shoot people under four circumstances:
1) Our immediate life was in danger of death or serious harm (not in this case).
2) Someone else's life was in immediate danger of death or serious harm (not in this case).
3) Believe it or not, an offenders life was in immediate danger of death or serious harm (think somebody holding a gun to their own head - weird I know, but there it is)
4) Their escape is likely to cause death or immediate danger to innocent people (think mass killers on a shooting rampage - even if they are running away from you and they have their back to you, you can shoot to kill if you think their escape will lead to more deaths, which is what the vast majority of LEOs would do if they were witnessing such carnage).

 

[el midgetron]

Terrorizing innocent American citizens, just like they accuse ICE of……

 

[Rawley]

So many lies in that statement.
First she made eye contact with Officer Ross that was caught in Ross's own video of the events.
And he caught her on video turning the steering wheel away from him.
Also what you missed is when he went for his gun.
Was it before or after she started driving?

After

 

[el midgetron]

 

[JWBooth]

 

[el midgetron]

Hell yeah. I hope they clean this garbage up.

 

[meaner gene]

Our general instructions were that we were only allowed to shoot people under four circumstances:
1) Our immediate life was in danger of death or serious harm (not in this case).
2) Someone else's life was in immediate danger of death or serious harm (not in this case).
3) Believe it or not, an offenders life was in immediate danger of death or serious harm (think somebody holding a gun to their own head - weird I know, but there it is)
4) Their escape is likely to cause death or immediate danger to innocent people (think mass killers on a shooting rampage - even if they are running away from you and they have their back to you, you can shoot to kill if you think their escape will lead to more deaths, which is what the vast majority of LEOs would do if they were witnessing such carnage).

I totally agree.

I think that's pretty universal for all law enforcement.