Wow, best video and analysis yet of Renee Good's end - By CNN even

[Mick2]

Okay. So you're saying you can't tell.

We can tell, though. We can tell from other other videos conclusively that he was struck. Why are you denying the existence and proof in those shots? What do you think the clear audible thud was in the officer's cam when she accelerated into him and his camera got knocked back? Goodriddance probably shit herself.....but I doubt it was that loud

 

[Mick2]

Here is the video from a clear angle. At :09, she puts the car in drive, the wheels turn to the right.

The car was not put in drive at :09 in your video. It was before that. By the time the wheels had turned clearly right the vehicle had already moved forward and struck the officer.

Before acceleration forward:

In the above shot, the front left wheel is about a foot in front of the white line and the rear left wheel is entirely on the the thin layer of snow. The vehicle front wheel is actually turned slightly LEFT, not right.

Moments later below the vehicle had already started accelerating forward and we know this because the front left wheel is now nearly 2 feet in front of the white line and the rear left wheel is now partially in the snow and partially off the snow:

The front wheel is not turned right. It's virtually straight on.....and the officer that was hit is directly in the path and it looks like he has now drawn his gun. Like I said, however, the officer that was hit was largely obscured from this angle.

Facts are a ***** to the mentally deranged left.

 

[Mac1958]

The car was not put in drive at :09 in your video. By the time the wheels had turned the vehicle had already moved forward and struck the officer.

Before acceleration forward:

View attachment 1204241

Front left wheel is about a foot in front of the white line and the rear left wheel entirely in the snow. The vehicle wheel is actually turned slightly LEFT, not right.

After the vehicle had started accelerating forward and we know this because the front left wheel is now nearly 2 feet in front of the white line and the rear left wheel is not partially in the snow and partially off the snow:

View attachment 1204244

The front wheel is not turned right. It's straight.....and the officer that was hit is directly in the path and has now pulled his gun.

Facts are a ***** to the mentally deranged left.

So what you see is the vehicle actually hitting the shooter.

Is that correct?

It's a "yes or no question".

 

[Mick2]

So what you see is the vehicle actually hitting the shooter.

Yes, from the angle on the other side because the officer falls several feet backward. It's conclusive.

We also hear the audible thud from contact with the vehicle and the officer from the officer's camera at the moment his camera is knocked backwards in his POV shot.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, from the angle on the other side because the officer falls several feet backward. It's conclusive.

We also hear the audible thud from the vehicle contact with the officer from the officer's camera at the moment his camera is knocked backwards in his POV shot.

You can "hear" it. I see.

From the video I provided, NONE of the three officers "fall several feet backwards".

So we exist in different realities. That's fine.

 

[Mick2]

You can "hear" it. I see.

And see it.

You do indeed "see" it as well. We all did.

Of course, I don't take a purposely obscured, inconclusive view and then deny the existence of the conclusive shots. That's the mentally deranged.

Btw, in the officer's camera when it gets knocked backwards at the thud moment what do you think the car hit? An invisible left-wing fairy? LOL

 

[Mick2]

From the video I provided, NONE of the three officers "fall several feet backwards".

How do you know? The officer in front of the vehicle was obscured in your shot.

You can't make up the humor of the mental illness that comes up with this:

Obscured view is proof of "no one hit".....but an audible thud and camera being knocked back at that same moment in the officer's view is "fake".

 

[Mick2]

This was probably already posted, but for anyone who hasn't seen it...everyone should watch this analysis.

From Grok:

Eric Balliet, the retired ICE agent featured in the CBS interview analyzing the Minneapolis shooting, has a robust background in federal law enforcement beyond just his retirement status.​

​

He served a full 25-year career as a federal agent, primarily with what is now known as ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and related Homeland Security components. In his later role, he most recently oversaw use-of-force investigations for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) — the investigative arm of ICE/DHS. This position involved reviewing and leading inquiries into incidents where agents applied force, giving him deep expertise in tactics, training standards, de-escalation, and policy compliance (e.g., when deadly force is or isn't justified, like during vehicle stops or fleeing scenarios).​

Even better analysis:

Experts analyze new video of fatal ICE agent shooting in Minneapolis

Cellphone video taken by the ICE agent involved in Wednesday's fatal shooting in Minneapolis of Renee Good shows a different view of the incident and the moments leading up to it. WCCO spoke with a use-of-force expert and a defense attorney, who both analyzed the video.

www.cbsnews.com

Pull your head out and start trying to be objective.

 

[Mick2]

You can "hear" it.

Something to chew on:

Do you believe this legal self-defense expert is lying to make you all look bad? And, if so, what part is not fact and what evidence do you have that's contrary to his analysis of the video?

 

[Mac1958]

Something to chew on:

View attachment 1204252


Do you believe this legal self-defense expert is lying to make you all look bad? And, if so, what part is not fact and what evidence do you have that's contrary to his analysis of the video?

I see the vehicle not hitting the shooter. With my eyes.

You see the vehicle hitting the shooter. With your eyes.

We exist in different realities. I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

[konradv]

Even better analysis:

View attachment 1204250

A “crunching” sound should leave marks. Any evidence?

 

[Mick2]

I see the vehicle not hitting the shooter. With my eyes.

You see the vehicle hitting the shooter. With your eyes.

Yes, the totality of evidence.....video, audio, etc prove the agent was hit.

You believe a single obscured angle, omitting all other angles and evidence, showed he wasn't. Even when one reduces all the evidence (video and audio) down to your single cherry-picked video then one can't even see the officer in question. You derived a conclusion from the cherry-picked absolute inconclusive. That's the sign of man who has fought a lost cause and is desperate.

We do live in two realities. The truth and then the mind of the a mentally deranged left-winger. So, here we are. You're desperate to keep the lie alive. We get it.......but it just proves you are more mentally ill than we thought. Your case has collapsed.

Btw, you never answered my question. If you believe the agent wasn't struck then what was the thud in his body cam shot? You've yet to provide a reasonable explanation. Tried to come up with something yet?

 

[Mick2]

A “crunching” sound should leave marks. Any evidence?

"Could" being the operative word there. I don't know if it did or didn't so I can't derive any conclusion either way on that point. A legitimate claim of self-defense doesn't need to rely on injury for validity however.

What plausible alternative explanation do you have, though, if you are suggesting a mysterious an origin of the thud(or crunching) that was louder than the gunshots at the precise moment the agent's body cam shot was knocked sideways? Reasonable, good people know what the "crunch" was. Bad people claim mysterious alternatives without being able to provide plausible alternatives.

This is the world we live in. Good and evil. Fact and fiction. Right and left.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, from the angle on the other side because the officer falls several feet backward. It's conclusive. We also hear the audible thud from contact with the vehicle and the officer from the officer's camera at the moment his camera is knocked backwards in his POV shot.

Dude, you are new here, you are being played by a head game artist. He only talks to you to use your own words to maneuver against yourself. Don't lie and say you heard the thud of the impact because I want to hear that video!

What happened can only be inferred from the collective video of various people and angles there all using low quality consumer grade video from a moderate to great distance.

But one video makes it clear the officer jumped back out of the way after another video shows her tires spinning on the icy road. His body cam shows the lady looking at him, coming into him, another video shows him jumping back out of the way, still another video shows him being contacted/hit/shoved by the corner of the car as the officer fired after being hit, and his body cam shows his body being turn CCW from the force of the impact.

But none of this matters. The woman spent all day making herself a clear threat to these officers deliberately provoking a confrontation, then she did the worst possible thing and gave one of the officers every reason to think she might hit, injure or kill him with her moving vehicle.

End of story. The officer fired in self-defense. He is just lucky he did not slip and fall down under her wheels. But once again, the Left are trying to change the subject and make it about the officer instead of about the democrats and all their months of effort to incite violence and confrontation to obstruct immigration enforcement.

BTW, where is Joe suntanning himself today while our nation deals with the onslaught of the 20 million undocumented, illegal aliens he bused and flew in?

 

[SaxonJackson]

 

[Care4all]

The vehicle wasn't "moving" when he walked in front of it, shit for brains. It was stationary and she accelerated it into him.

Nope! She was movingly around with her car....you sly one! the car was on, she was behind the wheel... You do not step in front of a car in that situation. Which makes sense to have this rule.

 

[toobfreak]

Nope! She was movingly around with her car....you sly one! the car was on, she was behind the wheel... You do not step in front of a car in that situation. Which makes sense to have this rule.

Hey idiot, when you are in a car dealing with an officer, you are supposed to shut your engine off and keep your two hands on the steering wheel in plain sight. That is the law here.

And the shooting officer was crossing around to get to the same side as the other officer at her door to support him while he was telling her to shut the motor off and step out of the vehicle.

She shouldn't even have had her car there, she drove into a police situation, used her car to obstruct the officers and then tried to drive practically right over someone getting away.

Just too bad it was an armed federal officer trained to defend himself from life-threatening situations.

Admit it--- these leftist idiots forced a confrontation with the intent of eventually causing a situation to be used as political hey for the midterms, but it will fail like everything else.

It is all about the woman in the car, the officer is just another intended victim of the ploy. Congratulations, you finally got someone killed, but thanks for admitting that Renee Good posed a credible threat.

Never a good idea to pose a threat to people armed and trained and licensed to kill you if necessary. These people are not there playing games like the smug, smiley Goods.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, the totality of evidence.....video, audio, etc prove the agent was hit.

You believe a single obscured angle, omitting all other angles and evidence, showed he wasn't. Even when one reduces all the evidence (video and audio) down to your single cherry-picked video then one can't even see the officer in question. You derived a conclusion from the cherry-picked absolute inconclusive. That's the sign of man who has fought a lost cause and is desperate.

We do live in two realities. The truth and then the mind of the a mentally deranged left-winger. So, here we are. You're desperate to keep the lie alive. We get it.......but it just proves you are more mentally ill than we thought. Your case has collapsed.

Btw, you never answered my question. If you believe the agent wasn't struck then what was the thud in his body cam shot? You've yet to provide a reasonable explanation. Tried to come up with something yet?

I don't know what it was. It was a sound. That's it.

I know what I saw in my reality. You know what you saw in yours.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You have no proof that the officer did not try to move away. Stop telling lies. This all happened in a split second. The officer was in front of the car when it was stopped, then Good gunned her engine and lurched toward the officer who did move to the side after firing a shot to try to stop her. Your bullshit doesn't pass the smell test.

.

Here he is, trying to get out of the path of the woman.

 

[konradv]

"Could" being the operative word there. I don't know if it did or didn't so I can't derive any conclusion either way on that point. A legitimate claim of self-defense doesn't need to rely on injury for validity however.

What plausible alternative explanation do you have, though, if you are suggesting a mysterious an origin of the thud(or crunching) that was louder than the gunshots at the precise moment the agent's body cam shot was knocked sideways? Reasonable, good people know what the "crunch" was. Bad people claim mysterious alternatives without being able to provide plausible alternatives.

This is the world we live in. Good and evil. Fact and fiction. Right and left.

You’re kidding, right? We’re supposed to accept a killing on the shooter’s say-so?!