The truth on the Renee Good shooting lies in the middle

[RedrickTheCoat]

Both perps used their vehicles illegally as weapons and got shot. Two good shoots.

Take these two shoots out of the equation, what do you think of the DOJ policy update that included the following:

"or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force."

Do you think that this is a good policy to have or not? To me, it seems it's a good policy to have because if someone panics or makes a single bad decision to try to flee and has the belief and knows that they are not a mortal threat to the person they are trying to get by, then you are needlessly killing someone because as I mentioned in another comment, the laws of physics and motion do not change when an officer discharges their weapon when they are in such close proximity to the vehicle. In fact, as demonstrated by not only the Good shooting, but other shootings, other people can become endanged. In Good's case, it meant accelerating without control of the vehicle. Luckily there was no one in the path of the car.

 

[Concerned American]

But they could drive around her, right?

She impeded the legal flow of traffic regardless if they could enter the OPPOSING TRAFFIC LANE. Stop trolling nonsense. There is NO LEGAL justification for her actions and she FAFO. Run along troll.

 

[WorldWatcher]

How so? He must have been right in front of the car because the bullet hit her. What are you even thinking?

I'm sorry, did I miss the investigation report (including ballistics and autopsy)?

He fired 3 times, at this point we DON'T KNOW which bullets individually (1?, 2? all 3?) hit her and what the trajectories were. Was it the first bullet that killed her or was it one of the bullets fired from the left of the vehicle through the drivers window that killed her?

I don't have answers to these questions yet, and neither to you.

WW

 

[Hollie]

But they could drive around her, right?

But she parked in such a way to block traffic. That was no accident.

When are you going to accept your jihad assignment and do the same thing?

Your “ICE watch” fellow jihadists are looking to you as a model for martyrdom,

 

[Hollie]

I'm sorry, did I miss the investigation report (including ballistics and autopsy)?

He fired 3 times, at this point we DON'T KNOW which bullets individually (1?, 2? all 3?) hit her and what the trajectories were. Was it the first bullet that killed her or was it one of the bullets fired from the left of the vehicle through the drivers window that killed her?

I don't have answers to these questions yet, and neither to you.

WW

That’s pretty radical as the left already has answers regarding this as ‘murder’, get with the program, fella.

 

[Marener]

But she parked in such a way to block traffic. That was no accident.

When are you going to accept your jihad assignment and do the same thing?

Your “ICE watch” fellow jihadists are looking to you as a model for martyrdom,

But they could have driven around her, right?

Not a complicated question. You don’t want to answer it.

 

[buttercup]

View attachment 1204089


1st shot.

2nd and 3rd shot trough the driver side window.

You can see from the image you posted, there is a slight curve to the glass and the cracking around the hole is pretty even showing he was at an angle when the first shot occurred.

It will be interesting to see a full basllistic report showing the trajectory of that bullet.

• If from in front, being near the A Frame Riser, then it would not have been a fatal shot likely missing her all together or injuring her on the left side.
• If from left of the driver side fender than that angle would have the bullet miss her completely and be lodged in - probably the back seat or exiting out the passenger side of the vehicle.

The 2nd and 3rd shot being through the driver side window means that the front of the vehicle was already past him in terms of travel arc because he had to be beside the vehicle for those shots.

WW

IF that is accurate...it's yet more evidence that he shot her out of anger, not because he genuinely believed she was a threat to his life.

Immediately after shooting her, he said "fuckin *****".... which doesn't look good for him, at all.

As for all those saying she should have obeyed orders and gotten out of the car in the first place... I'm not condoning what she did. Maybe because she was familiar with their track record of excessive force, she didn't want to get beaten or pepper sprayed or worse. But even if her decision to flee was a bad one, fleeing alone is not a capital crime.

 

[Concerned American]

Actually they weren't blocked from using the roadway. No I don't disagree that she stopped perpendicular to the flow of traffic, but there was plenty of room for ICE to proceed.

How do we know this, because an ICE vehicle pulled around her and stopped.

See image below, both green arrows were occupied by ICE.

WW

View attachment 1204094

Thank you. The vehicle on the right is responding to the illegally parked vehicle that Good occupied. The vehicle on the left did not proceed because Good's vehicle is blocking the thoroughfare. You folks really need to quit trolling nonsense. Your statements make you perfect candidates for being committed to a mental facility.

 

[DonGlock26]

Take these two shoots out of the equation, what do you think of the DOJ policy update that included the following:

"or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force."

Do you think that this is a good policy to have or not? To me, it seems it's a good policy to have because if someone panics or makes a single bad decision to try to flee and has the belief and knows that they are not a mortal threat to the person they are trying to get by, then you are needlessly killing someone because as I mentioned in another comment, the laws of physics and motion do not change when an officer discharges their weapon when they are in such close proximity to the vehicle. In fact, as demonstrated by not only the Good shooting, but other shootings, other people can become endanged. In Good's case, it meant accelerating without control of the vehicle. Luckily there was no one in the path of the car.

Do you have a link?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Bullets travel in a straight line, that's way forensic investigators use lasers to find a bullet track. They used to use string. If he shot from the side, how did a bullet go straight at her? Do you think it turned mid flight?

What the hell are you talking about? Trying to be dismissive?

Of course bullets travel in straight lines (unless deflected by some object or medium) and that is all I've asked for. Just because the bullet hole is in the windshield does NOT mean it hit her or killed her.

The windshield hole is only one point on the trajectory. The ending location of the bullet (in her head/chest, to the left or righ of her, etc) will then establish that line of travel and then determine his location when the shot was fired.

Now understanding this was a very fast situation with fraction of a second decision making there will still be the question of the 1st shot and the follow-up shots clearly from the left side of the vehicle.

WW

 

[Papageorgio]

I’m having fun. You guys are really bad at making a rational argument.

So are you, you have had no rational argument so far.

 

[Hollie]

But they could have driven around her, right?

Not a complicated question. You don’t want to answer it.

They could just allow her to break the law. You insist on an entitlement for your jihad warriors to break the law,

She could have parked her vehicle in such a manner as not to break the law, correct?

“Not a complicated question. You don’t want to answer it.”

This was all about the leftist jihad looking for a confrontation.

You got what you wanted, you get what you deserve.

 

[Marener]

So are you, you have had no rational argument so far.

Maybe you’re not rational.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I’m sure WW believes the images of a bullet hole in the windshield is a part of some gubmint’ conspiracy,

No, WW thinks that the bullet whole in the windshield is one piece of data which is part of the context of the whole situation.

Another aspect is the 2nd and 3rd shots through the driver side window, meaning the officer was to the side of the vehicle.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

She impeded the legal flow of traffic regardless if they could enter the OPPOSING TRAFFIC LANE. Stop trolling nonsense. There is NO LEGAL justification for her actions and she FAFO. Run along troll.

Last I checked impeding the flow if traffic wasn't a capital offense.

WW

 

[RedrickTheCoat]

He stopped her from killing him, whether she meant to or not. His personal video clearly shown her looking straight at him through the windshield proving she was headed straight for him. You can also hear him say OOOOFF as he was being hit.

LOL, what do you mean he stopped her from killing him? To confirm, are you saying that if he didn't discharge his weapon, she would have killed him in that moment?
Btw which part of the car was he hit by? The hood right? Which part of the hood...center, left, right?

 

[Leo123]

What the hell are you talking about? Trying to be dismissive?

Of course bullets travel in straight lines (unless deflected by some object or medium) and that is all I've asked for. Just because the bullet hole is in the windshield does NOT mean it hit her or killed her.

The windshield hole is only one point on the trajectory. The ending location of the bullet (in her head/chest, to the left or righ of her, etc) will then establish that line of travel and then determine his location when the shot was fired.

Now understanding this was a very fast situation with fraction of a second decision making there will still be the question of the 1st shot and the follow-up shots clearly from the left side of the vehicle.

WW

Actually the bullet in the windshield clearly shows the gun was IN FRONT of the car. If the bullet hit the windshield at an angle it would not have changed course to an almost right angle to go directly toward Good. You are seeing only what you want to see. You are the one being 'dismissive' of the facts.

 

[Marener]

They could just allow her to break the law. You insist on an entitlement for your jihad warriors to break the law,

She could have parked her vehicle in such a manner as not to break the law, correct?

“Not a complicated question. You don’t want to answer it.”

This was all about the leftist jihad looking for a confrontation.

You got what you wanted, you get what you deserve.

You still don’t answer my question. I know why.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Thank you. The vehicle on the right is responding to the illegally parked vehicle that Good occupied. The vehicle on the left did not proceed because Good's vehicle is blocking the thoroughfare. You folks really need to quit trolling nonsense. Your statements make you perfect candidates for being committed to a mental facility.

So I show a picture how ICE vehicles could pass arou8nd the stopped Honda and you claim I need to be committed.

Well, if you can't refute the truth, offer a personal insult.

WW

 

[Hollie]

ICE had no reason to try and yank her out of her car. She wasn’t threatening anyone.

She was breaking the law. That’s reason enough to pull her out of the car. Impeding traffic is breaking the law.

Once again, you are free to block a roadway by parking your car perpendicular to traffic.

Be a good warrior and show your mettle, sniveling coward.