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

[JoeB131]

Look, "Dear," whether a suspect is shooting you with a gun or appearing to threaten your life or that of others with deadly force (which is what a moving vehicle is), 99 out of 100% of the time if the officer can return deadly force to remove the threat, he will, he did, and now Good's lezbo punk stupid ass is laying in the ground.

I'd give the officer an award for his excellent shooting while trying not to get run over by the stupid psycho-*****. Everyone but jackasses like you know not to try to run police over with your car.

And I hope they charge the psycho-*****'s "husband" too for inciting the violence. Nail that ***** to the wall.

The only people who incited violence are the Mall Cop Rejects that Gestapo Barbie is hiring.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

By that dubious logic, then, Rosa Parks and MLK were criminals, as they broke Jim Crow laws (and no doubt others) fighting for civil rights.

If blacks still did not have civil rights, you might have a point. That said, park your vehicle in the middle of the road, blow your horn incessantly and see what happens.

Get real. The only reason this escalated is because Ross escalated the situation by confronting the two women.

For blocking the street, which she shouldn't have done.

If they were breaking the law, he shouldn't have been videoing their license plate, he should have been announcing what law they broke and ordering them to stop.

She knew what law she broke and she broke it because she knew it would get their attention.

Bullshit, the only reason he got slightly nudged was because he walked in front of the car while the other Jackbooted Nazis were trying to pull her out of the car.

Bullshit. She was told to get out of the vehicle and she refused. And the reason he got nudged is because she panicked and punched the gas. It's like blaming the shooting victim for standing in front of the bullet that kills him.

Whatever responsibilities they had as ICE officers, she had responsibilities as an adult licensed motorist. If you even nudge someone with your vehicle, that is negligence.

 

[Care4all]

LOL The State in question under the current Governor passed and initiated a law that says cops can shot even if they haven't been hit by the vehicle. Every cop IS trained to shoot when a vehicle attempts to hit them.

Please link up and show me the law or regulation that you claim officers are trained to shoot the driver of a moving car.

 

[2aguy]

NOPE! Every cop is trained NOT TO DO THAT, not to shoot in to a moving car....read the regulation, for goodness sake!

Dipshit, you don't know what you are talking about......

9-0 ruling including the idiot democrat party Justices...

=====
(2) Petitioners did not fire more shots than necessary to end the public safety risk. It makes sense that, if officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, they need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. Here, during the 10-second span when all the shots were fired, Rickard never abandoned his attempt to flee and eventually managed to drive away. A passenger’s presence does not bear on whether officers violated Rickard’s Fourth Amendment rights, which “are personal rights [that] may not be vicariously asserted.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174. Pp. 11–12.
======

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/765/

 

[2aguy]

Please link up and show me the law or regulation that you claim officers are trained to shoot the driver of a moving car.

The Supreme Court ruling, 9-0


===========


We analyze this question from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Ibid. We thus “allo[w] for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id., at 396–397.
----
In this case, respondent advances two main Fourth Amendment arguments. First, she contends that the Fourth Amendment did not allow petitioners to use deadly force to terminate the chase. See Brief for Respondent 24–35. Second, she argues that the “degree of force was excessive,” that is, that even if the officers were permitted to fire their weapons, they went too far when they fired as many rounds as they did. See id., at 36–38. We address each issue in turn.

--------------------
(2) Petitioners did not fire more shots than necessary to end the public safety risk.

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

Here, during the 10-second span when all the shots were fired, Rickard never abandoned his attempt to flee and eventually managed to drive away. A passenger’s presence does not bear on whether officers violated Rickard’s Fourth Amendment rights, which “are personal rights [that] may not be vicariously asserted.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174. Pp. 11–12.
======

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/765/

 

[Care4all]

The Supreme Court ruling, 9-0


===========


We analyze this question from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Ibid. We thus “allo[w] for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id., at 396–397.
----
In this case, respondent advances two main Fourth Amendment arguments. First, she contends that the Fourth Amendment did not allow petitioners to use deadly force to terminate the chase. See Brief for Respondent 24–35. Second, she argues that the “degree of force was excessive,” that is, that even if the officers were permitted to fire their weapons, they went too far when they fired as many rounds as they did. See id., at 36–38. We address each issue in turn.

--------------------
(2) Petitioners did not fire more shots than necessary to end the public safety risk.

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

Here, during the 10-second span when all the shots were fired, Rickard never abandoned his attempt to flee and eventually managed to drive away. A passenger’s presence does not bear on whether officers violated Rickard’s Fourth Amendment rights, which “are personal rights [that] may not be vicariously asserted.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174. Pp. 11–12.
======

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/765/

Geez, you are talking about a high speed chase....and NOT the circumstance of Rene Good.

And where is the regulation and training for cops shooting in to a moving car?

 

[Rawley]

NOPE! Every cop is trained NOT TO DO THAT, not to shoot in to a moving car....read the regulation, for goodness sake!

We have. You're wrong.

 

[Care4all]

The Supreme Court ruling, 9-0


===========


We analyze this question from the perspective “of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” Ibid. We thus “allo[w] for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” Id., at 396–397.
----
In this case, respondent advances two main Fourth Amendment arguments. First, she contends that the Fourth Amendment did not allow petitioners to use deadly force to terminate the chase. See Brief for Respondent 24–35. Second, she argues that the “degree of force was excessive,” that is, that even if the officers were permitted to fire their weapons, they went too far when they fired as many rounds as they did. See id., at 36–38. We address each issue in turn.

--------------------
(2) Petitioners did not fire more shots than necessary to end the public safety risk.

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

Here, during the 10-second span when all the shots were fired, Rickard never abandoned his attempt to flee and eventually managed to drive away. A passenger’s presence does not bear on whether officers violated Rickard’s Fourth Amendment rights, which “are personal rights [that] may not be vicariously asserted.” Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174. Pp. 11–12.
======

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/572/765/

Barnes vs Felix SC Ruling May 2025. SC ruling 9 to 0.

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

All circumstance must be considered for reasonableness for the kill....including the cops actions before his kill shot that might have lead to his kill and including what the driver was being stopped for....a traffic violation or ticket payment violation vs being stopped as a suspect in a robbery, or assault, or murder type thing.

 

[Care4all]

We have. You're wrong.

Post it and prove I am wrong, please.

 

[Rawley]

Post it and prove I am wrong, please.

You can do you own homework if you really care. But generally, they are trained that they should not shoot at a moving vehicle. The exception in every LEO's training allows them to shoot at a moving vehicle if they fear for their lives or the lives of others. No LEO department in the country has a 100% 'no shoot' policy.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

The exception in every LEO's training allows them to shoot at a moving vehicle if they fear for their lives or the lives of others.

The police could claim they feared for people's lives in any or every chase with what you are saying here.

 

[Rawley]

The police could claim they feared for people's lives in any or every chase with what you are saying here.

They "could" But they don't because if there is a chase, it's more dangerous to shoot the driver because who knows where they might crash doing 100mph . 99.99% of the time when a shooting occurs is when there is a stop and the driver turns the car into weapon on the officers on their feet on the ground. Like Ms. Good did.

 

[Care4all]

You can do you own homework if you really care. But generally, they are trained that they should not shoot at a moving vehicle. The exception in every LEO's training allows them to shoot at a moving vehicle if they fear for their lives or the lives of others. No LEO department in the country has a 100% 'no shoot' policy.

That is correct....but the circumstances surrounding the shoot like a traffic stop vs an armed person shooting at you from the moving vehicle, or whether the driver was just trying to leave or get away vs actually with full car force trying to kill the officer in any reasonable officer's mind for the conditions at hand....

This is a law enforcement training agency used by LE and how they train on it...please read it, all the way through....

Was what Ross did to Rene Good, really reasonable?

Imo, absolutely NOT! It should be investigated to find out...

When Are Police Justified in Shooting at Cars - Lexipol

Revisiting the legal, tactical, and policy complexities of deadly force involving vehicles, drawing on Lexipol’s “Cops and Cars” webinars.

www.lexipol.com

 

[AZrailwhale]

By that dubious logic, then, Rosa Parks and MLK were criminals, as they broke Jim Crow laws (and no doubt others) fighting for civil rights.

Get real. The only reason this escalated is because Ross escalated the situation by confronting the two women. If they were breaking the law, he shouldn't have been videoing their license plate, he should have been announcing what law they broke and ordering them to stop.



Bullshit, the only reason he got slightly nudged was because he walked in front of the car while the other Jackbooted Nazis were trying to pull her out of the car.

They were criminals. That is the whole purpose behind civil disobedience, to violate the law, get arrested and face punishment to spur legal change.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

That is correct....but the circumstances surrounding the shoot like a traffic stop vs an armed person shooting at you from the moving vehicle, or whether the driver was just trying to leave or get away vs actually with full car force trying to kill the officer in any reasonable officer's mind for the conditions at hand....

This is a law enforcement training agency used by LE and how they train on it...please read it, all the way through....

Was what Ross did to Rene Good, really reasonable?

Imo, absolutely NOT! It should be investigated to find out...

When Are Police Justified in Shooting at Cars - Lexipol

Revisiting the legal, tactical, and policy complexities of deadly force involving vehicles, drawing on Lexipol’s “Cops and Cars” webinars.

www.lexipol.com

.

Somebody's blog says so.

That's all it takes for the left cult.









.

 

[Care4all]

They were criminals. That is the whole purpose behind civil disobedience, to violate the law, get arrested and face punishment to spur legal change.

Did any cop state to her that she was being arrested, and the reason for the arrest? Not that I have seen, anywhere.

 

[Rawley]

That is correct....but the circumstances surrounding the shoot like a traffic stop vs an armed person shooting at you from the moving vehicle, or whether the driver was just trying to leave or get away vs actually with full car force trying to kill the officer in any reasonable officer's mind for the conditions at hand....

This is a law enforcement training agency used by LE and how they train on it...please read it, all the way through....

Was what Ross did to Rene Good, really reasonable?

Absolutely

Imo, absolutely NOT! It should be investigated to find out...

When Are Police Justified in Shooting at Cars - Lexipol

Revisiting the legal, tactical, and policy complexities of deadly force involving vehicles, drawing on Lexipol’s “Cops and Cars” webinars.

www.lexipol.com

Think of it this way. If that was your ten year old child in front of Ms. Good's car, would you have been in fear for her life?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Did any cop state to her that she was being arrested, and the reason for the arrest? Not that I have seen, anywhere.

.

When a LE officer tells you four times to exit your vehicle, it's a safe bet that you are under arrest.

If you refuse to understand this, it's just you being disingenuous.







.

 

[2aguy]

Barnes vs Felix SC Ruling May 2025. SC ruling 9 to 0.

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

All circumstance must be considered for reasonableness for the kill....including the cops actions before his kill shot that might have lead to his kill and including what the driver was being stopped for....a traffic violation or ticket payment violation vs being stopped as a suspect in a robbery, or assault, or murder type thing.

She hit the agent with her SUV......

She hit the agent with her SUV.....

Do I need to repeat that?

 

[2aguy]

Did any cop state to her that she was being arrested, and the reason for the arrest? Not that I have seen, anywhere.

They told her to exit her vehicle which is a lawful order. This has also been confirmed as a Constitutional practice by the Supreme Court.