The ICE Agent Who Killed Renee Good Disregarded Traffic Stop Guidelines
Jonathan Ross positioned himself in front of Good's car and continued firing even after he was no longer in its path.
During a contentious interview with CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem reiterated her claim that Renee Good, the woman who was fatally shot by an immigration agent in Minneapolis last Wednesday, was engaged in "domestic terrorism" because "she weaponized her vehicle to conduct an act of violence against a law enforcement officer and the public." Noem added that Jonathan Ross, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer who killed Good, "acted on his training and defended himself and his life and his fellow colleagues" when he fired at the Honda Pilot she was driving.
Judging from bystander video of the incident, those claims are dubious. That evidence does not definitively resolve the question of whether the shooting was legally justified. But it does suggest that Good, who was monitoring ICE activities in Minneapolis and attracted attention because she was blocking a lane of traffic on Portland Avenue, was trying to leave the scene rather than trying to run Ross down. It also indicates that Ross' tactics deviated from Justice Department guidelines and from police training regarding traffic stops.
"Those officers had been out in an enforcement action," Noem told Tapper. "A vehicle had been stuck [in the snow]. They had come to help get that vehicle out. That's when this individual [Good] started blocking traffic for minutes and minutes….[She] was yelling at them and impeding a federal law enforcement investigation. That's what you need to focus on, Jake….They were breaking the law by impeding and obstructing a law enforcement operation."
On Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance posted Ross' own cell phone video of the encounter, saying it confirmed that "his life was endangered and he fired in self defense." But that video is inconsistent with Noem's account in some ways, and it raises questions about Ross' behavior prior to the shooting.
Although Noem said Good "blocked the road for a long time," Ross' footage and the other videos show cars driving past Good, using the lane that was still open. And although Noem said Good was "yelling at" the ICE officers, she is smiling in Ross' video and does not raise her voice. "That's fine, dude," she calmly tells Ross as he approaches her car, holding up his cell phone. "I'm not mad at you." Ross moves to the rear of the car, recording the license plate.
"That's OK," says Good's wife, who has stepped out of the car and is recording the scene with her own cell phone camera. "We don't change our plates every morning, just so you know. It'll be the same plate when you come talk to us later. That's fine."
Although Good's wife also seems calm, her attitude is more confrontational. "You want to come at us?" she says. "I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy." At this point, another ICE agent tells Good to "get out of the fucking car." Other videos show that agent grabbing the handle of the front driver's side door and reaching into the car. Meanwhile, Ross walks around the car to the front. Other footage shows him positioned near the left front bumper. "Drive, baby, drive," Good's wife says.
The car backs up a bit, then moves forward, the front wheels turned to the right—away from the ICE agents. "Whoa," Ross exclaims before firing three shots at the car, one through the lower left corner of the windshield and two more through the front driver's side window. The SUV continues moving down the street before crashing into a car parked on the left side. "Fucking bitch," someone says. When Tapper asked Noem if that was Ross speaking, she said "it could be."
Ross' conduct prior to the shooting raises a couple of questions. First, why did he record the scene with his cell phone, keeping one of his hands occupied during a potentially dangerous encounter with someone Noem describes as a domestic terrorist? Second, why did Ross position himself in front of the car, which by Noem's account exposed him to the threat that justified firing his weapon?
"If you're an agent," security consultant Jonathan Wackrow told CNN, "you should not be encumbered by anything in your hands. That's what body-worn cameras are for. But they're not wearing body-worn cameras."
Law enforcement officers are trained not to stand in front of a car during a traffic stop, precisely because of the danger that Noem emphasizes. "Officers should not stand in front of the suspect vehicle," says the Metropolitan Police Academy, which trains Washington, D.C., cops. The preferred position, aimed at minimizing the risk to officers, is on the driver's side or the passenger's side at or behind the "B pillar" separating the front and rear seats.
"Stepping in front of, standing behind or attempting to grab a vehicle to stop it will always be a losing, possibly fatal proposition," warns former Minnesota police officer Duane Wolfe in a recent Police1 article. "You can dramatically cut down on your chance of being run over by doing everything in your power to avoid standing directly in front [of] or behind a vehicle."
If an officer nevertheless finds himself in the path of a moving vehicle, the Justice Department says, he may fire his weapon only if there is "no other objectively reasonable means of defense," such as "moving out of the path of the vehicle." Video shows that Ross did in fact quickly move away from the front of Good's car.
At that point, according to Noem, Ross had already been struck. "He was injured," she told Tapper. "He went to the hospital. He was treated."
The bystander videos do not clearly show whether the car made contact with Ross, although they do show him walking around after the shooting, which suggests that whatever injury he may have suffered was not very serious. In any case, President Donald Trump was clearly exaggerating when he said Good "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over" Ross, adding that "it is hard to believe he is alive."
Whether or not the car actually hit Ross, and regardless of how seriously he was injured, he reasonably perceived a danger while he remained in front of the vehicle (where he would not have been had he followed standard police practice). But it is not clear whether he was in the car's path when he fired the first shot, and he definitely was not when he fired the second and third shots.
When Tapper asked Noem about the justification for the shots that Ross fired as the car passed him, she noted that Ross was making a "split-second" decision, adding that he "took action based on his training to protect himself and the public." But it is hard to see in what sense that is true, since shooting Good did not stop the car from moving. To the contrary, the SUV careened down the street without guidance, stopping only after it crashed into another car. If anything, Ross aggravated any threat the car may have posed by killing the person who was steering it.
Last Thursday, Vance sought to illuminate Ross' state of mind by noting a June 2025 incident in which he was injured after pulling over Roberto Carlos Muñoz, a Guatemalan who had been convicted of sexual abuse. "That very ICE officer nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car, six months ago," Vance told reporters. "You think maybe he's a little bit sensitive about someone ramming him with an automobile?"
As Tapper noted in his interview with Noem, that explanation suggests the earlier experience "might have influenced" how Ross responded to Good. "There's no indication [of] that," Noem said, which makes you wonder why Vance thought the information was relevant.
It does seem to be relevant in at least one respect. As The New York Times notes, Ross was dragged because of how he responded after Muñoz refused to roll down his window and open his door. Ross "then pulled his Taser, shattered the rear driver's side window of Mr. Muñoz's car and reached in with one arm to try to unlock a door," the Times reports. "At that point, Mr. Muñoz shifted into drive and pulled away, dragging the agent."
Ross was dragged for about 100 yards, suffering an arm injury that required 20 stitches. "I feared for my life," Ross recalled at the December trial that resulted in Muñoz's conviction for assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon.
While that ordeal was surely traumatic, Ross could have avoided it if he had followed another basic precaution that police officers are supposed to take during traffic stops. "Never reach into the car," a Police1 article warns. "Officers who reach into the vehicle run the risk of being dragged or otherwise attacked." The agent who told Good to "get out of the fucking car" likewise ignored that advice.
Given the direction in which Good was steering, it seems doubtful that she intentionally "weaponized her vehicle." Ross may nevertheless have reasonably believed he was in danger when the SUV began moving forward, although that does not necessarily justify his response, especially after he was no longer in the vehicle's path. And he could have avoided the rapid escalation of the encounter if he had taken basic precautions, which he seems to have a history of ignoring.
"This investigation will continue to unfold," Noem told Tapper, "and more and more information will come [out]." Yet Noem has prejudged the outcome by asserting that Good deliberately tried to run Ross down, that Ross acted in self-defense, and that he followed his training. She was making such statements, which the president and the vice president echoed, within hours of the incident. If all the relevant facts were already known at that point, why bother with an investigation?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
I don’t believe for a moment that anything Sullum says in this article is true.
2 shots in 1 sec?
I keep seeing idiots say he should have considered each shot separately
Gotta love armchair refereeing from pussy leftists who have never been in a life or death situation. And the bottom line is that the stupid bitch got herself shot on purpose.
Plumhoff v Rickard. 9-0 decision. Including Sotomayor.
“It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”
The left just makes up the laws.
Armchair lawyers are so predictable. Be honest: the facts and the law don't matter. The only thing that matters to you is what you THINK the law says, or want the law to say.
There was no threat to public safety, considering that the officer intentionally placed himself in danger and did not remove himself from danger (one step to the right would have done it) once the threat became imminent (when Good hit the gas, the car's wheels, being on ice, spun for a second or so before the car started moving). This precludes a self-defense claim.
Since you like Supreme Court cases, look up Barnes v. Felix. He cannot claim self-defense. Then look up 18 US Code Section 241. The officer is eligible for the death penalty.
So, your contention is that when someone has been intentionally obstructing ICE operations with their vehicle, on and off, for some time that day, they should be able to just drive away, by threatening to run over the LEOs trying to arrest them, with their vehicles, and the LEOs trying to arrest them must clear out of their way, to avoid being hit. Yes, I can see how the protesters and those sympathetic to them, like you, would like that to be the law. This may also explain why Good thought that it was just fine to drive off, instead of complying with valid LEO orders to exit her vehicle, and her wife promised the ICE agents that they would have an opportunity later that day to talk to them some more.
But this puts the protesters completely in control of the interaction between them and ICE. They could jump in, box the ICE agents in, with their vehicles, so that ICE couldn’t remove their detainees, then when ICE agents moved in to arrest them for this obstruction, just drive off, with ICE having to clear out of their way in front of their vehicles. Which appears to be exactly what Good and her wife had been doing that day - just like in the training videos the two of them had at home, and had presumably watched, from ICE Watch MN. It was an organized (and likely well funded, given their lack of apparent sources of income) operation, that they apparently were engaged in, to obstruct the ICE operation.
What your armchair attorneys, and their legal advice, that the protesters (apparently including Good et uxor) were operating under had a couple of missing pieces:
- federal, not state, law controlled, under Supremacy.
- even under MN law, LEOs must be able to effect arrests, and merely driving away from the LEOs trying to effect such, can’t be allowed to succeed, or they could never arrest anyone.
- the MN Retreat Doctrine is thus limited, in just this sort of situation. LEOs don’t have to retreat, esp when, as here, they were trying to effect an arrest.
- the instant that Good’s vehicle impacted the ICE agent, as it did, the charges went from fleeing a LEO to battery on a LEO. And Good went from being a fleeing criminal, to a fleeing violent criminal.
Or in any Sullum article. That's why JS;dr.
The wheels were not pointed away from Ross when Good hit the accelerator. The video from the back left of the SUV shows the wheels spinning out (meaning Good had already hit the gas at this point) over the ice while pointed directly at Ross. I don't know how one can argue Ross couldn't have feared for his life when he hears the vehicle's wheels spinning out.
I also saw a recreation from the perspective of where Ross stood, using the same model SUV, that shows Ross wouldn't have been able to see the direction the wheels were facing from his vantage point in front of the vehicle.
He should not have walked or stood in front of the vehicle, for his safety, but he did. But that doesn't mean he didn't fear for his life when Good decided to drive while he was in front of her SUV.
"The wheels were not pointed away from Ross when Good hit the accelerator. The video from the back left of the SUV shows the wheels spinning out (meaning Good had already hit the gas at this point) over the ice while pointed directly at Ross. I don't know how one can argue Ross couldn't have feared for his life when he hears the vehicle's wheels spinning out."
She also stared at him. The entire time.
He could have taken one step to the right and been out from in front of the car. He put himself in danger and refused to remove himself from danger once the threat became imminent. This precludes a self-defense claim (see Barnes v. Felix).
Nope! Different rules for LEOs. You are talking Retreat Doctrine, which the USG and most states have gotten rid of (but not MN. But there are very notable exceptions for LEOs because of the realistic fear that Retreat Doctrine will be used offensively by fleeing criminals to prevent their arrest. She became a fleeing fugitive when she was ordered to get out of her car, and drove away instead. She became a fleeing violent felon after hitting the ICE officer. LEOs are not required to Retreat when trying to apprehend fleeing criminals.
And if the armchair lawyers advising ICE Watch MN were actual lawyers, with malpractice hanging over their heads, they would have advised the crazy women watching their video to not try driving off, after LEOs have ordered them out of the car. Good might still be alive. And her Wife, who had been egging her on to do just that, wouldn’t now be a widow.
You don't have to. Use your own brain to figure it out. He is offering an argument that you can address point-by-point, otherwise, you are just wasted space.
Do you think his analysis is correct? Not going to convince someone who has made up their minds at behest of the dem narrative.
John McCarthy famously observed that "Those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to talk nonsense."
Have you consulted the Honda Pilot performance specs, counted the frames in the damning tape, and run the acceleration numbers yet?
You've had three days.
How was this responsive to my question despite it being similar to your past retardation?
Acceleration has zero bearing in the discussion retard. Do you always posit retarded irrelevant questions? I know the answer is yes.
Relevant questions.
Is a car considered a weapon if you drive ot at someone? Yes or no?
Did she hit the officer? Yes or no?
Are you retarded? Yes.
He’s babbling. Desperately trying to portray a clean shoot as a crime.
I find this view increasingly bizarre. With the evidence available it's possible to justify the first shot but the second and third are clearly against any reasonable interpretation of the policy or training this officer is supposed to be trained in. One thing that seems to not be in dispute though is that this ice agent is either poorly trained or simply repeatedly negligent. Neither of those are positives.
How to say "I don't now anything about firearms" with saying it. Nobody, law enforcement or military, trains to take one shot and then stop and think for a while. A three shot group is standard. Either the threat was neutralized on the first shot or it wasn't, but you don't have that kind of time. Those three shots came out in less than a second and reaction time to reset and think about a second or third shot would be multiple seconds. Time you don't necessarily have.
Usually two shots, but sometimes three, esp if, body armor is a possibility (which the protesters like Good and her wife are starting to wear). Are they just overweight Lesbians? Or are they wearing body armor under their warm clothes? I think that if I had been in the ICE agent’s shoes, I wouldn’t have taken the chance, but instead take the 3rd shot. And with the protesters starting to wear body armor now, and choosing to physically attack them, ICE agents may indeed be being trained to shoot two to center mass, and a third to the head.
In any case, the officer drew and shot the three rounds extremely quickly, without pausing to check if the first round(s) terminated the threat. That showed a lot of training.
"Zero bearing"?
Jesse, what part of V = aT don't you understand?
This tragedy starts at T = 0, V = O,
At what value of V was the first shot fired ?
The officer could have easily removed himself from danger by taking one step to the right. His putting himself in danger and then refusing to move himself out of danger precludes a self-defense claim (see Barnes v. Felix).
He was a LEO, with no duty to Retreat, when trying to apprehend a fleeing criminal. If Good had left her vehicle, when ordered to, you might have a point. But her trying to drive away, instead of complying with lawful orders from LEOs, meant that they didn’t have to step away, to essentially Retreat from the confrontation.
Evasion duly noted.
The salient question remains the on that defines what threat, if any the car posed to the man who shot the driver: how fast was the car moving?
Why are you afraid to run the numbers?
Retarded.
Or the MAGA narrative, apparently.
Six blanked out ku-kluxers above the use your own brain post missed their chance to benefit from it. The Gestapo must be pouring cash into Whackjobbia to fund all these new masked sockpuppets.
You’re too much of a coward to defend your babbling Hank. Typical gutless pinko pussy.
ICE Agent A walked around the 4600 lb SUV, filming, as ICE Agent B addressed the driver:
"Get out of the car"
No move to comply
"Get out of the *expletivw* car"
No move to comply
"Get out of the car"
Driver steps on the gas
ICE Agent A, in front of the SUV, observes her lack of compliance, and draws his sidearm. He fires as the SUV moves forwards. The bullet goes through the windshield, apparently striking the driver. The SUV, still moving, veers into parked cars and stops.
And to make sure he was defending himself, he shot her twice more in time it took for the car to move forward, at most, by the distance from the front of the hood to the driver's side window.
Calculating its velocity is left as an exercise for the reasonable reader.
Firing those three shots like that is training. Muscle memory. His speed and accuracy implies a lot of training.
although that does not necessarily justify his response
People keep saying that Sullum's one saving grace is that he's pro-2A, but I don't buy it.
He says it is fine to HAVE guns but not use them in self defense.
And, even if you do use them (assuming anyone is allowed to be wherever they are to begin with), the first shot is OK but all subsequent shots are automatically suspect for 'cruel and unusual' punishment. Effectively de-legitimizing all arms back to flintlock pistols, "the way the Founding Fathers intended."
You can't claim self-defense if you put yourself in danger and then refuse to move out of danger once the threat becomes imminent (see Barnes v. Felix). In this case, moving ONE STEP to the right would have eliminated the danger.
We're either a nation of laws or we aren't. Under 18 USC 241 the officer is eligible for the death penalty.
Standing in front of a stopped vehicle is not inherently dangerous. I walk past stopped vehicles every time I visit the supermarket. He didn't jump in front of a moving vehicle-it only became a weapon when she put it in drive and stepped on the gas. He was, seemingly, trying to get out of the way when he was struck by the car.
I'd rather the officer was less quick to pull out his sidearm, but he clearly didn't create this situation. He responded to a report of a vehicle unlawfully blocking traffic and wasn't trying to "bait" the driver into attacking him.
The ICE agent can claim SD, because he is a LEO, because there is a LEO exception to MN’s Retreat Doctrine. By the time that she hit the officer, she was a fleeing criminal (from driving off, instead of getting out of her vehicle, as ordered by LEOs).
For one thing, it wasn't a traffic stop.
Only the part between the beginning of the first sentence and the end of the last sentence.
JS;dr. But I've reached the same conclusion.
Easy to understand. Starting with, this wasn't a traffic stop!
JS;dr
You all will just have to tell me if this piece was better thought out and better written than the “Officer who shot Ashli Babbitt ignored guidelines” articles.
Great point. Babbitt was not a threat to anyone, while Good was clearly interfering with ICE, refused an order to exit her vehicle, and threatened an officer with a weapon (her SUV).
Liberals calling for the ICE officer to be prosecuted, need to explain why Babbitt's killer was not prosecuted.
It appears the standard for Democrats (and Sullum) depends entirely on whether the officer is pushing a Democratic narrative to support Democratic policy, or not.
""Jonathan Ross positioned himself in front of Good's car ""
A lot of people still don't believe that. Despite damn near every video showing it.
""Given the direction in which Good was steering, it seems doubtful that she intentionally "weaponized her vehicle." ""
It's possible the officer felt threated when he was in front of the car and he heard the wife say "Drive baby drive". If a vehicle is facing you, and you hear the passenger says that. You may very well believe they are coming at you even if that is not their intention.
You don't think the lefty lesbian suddenly had the urge to drive over a cop while being filmed by a half dozen other cops?
I doubt it, they came there so they could record something they could post on social media to virtue signal and show they are part of the resistance. Committing murder would have undercut that.
That’s why antifa selectively edits their videos to avoid the truth.
I don't believe Good wanted to run over Ross. I think she wanted to flee. But it doesn't matter what Good intended. It matters what she did, as Ross isn't a mind-reader. It does, however, matter what Ross believed was happening. He shouldn't have been in front of the SUV, but I believe he did fear for his life.
Couldn’t he have just shot the steering wheel out of her hands like in a Mathew Vaughn movie?
https://youtu.be/BxuGITwjxR8?si=8lEj6o3VX1xwrnuR
Are you telling me a dem elected sherriff doesnt know what the fuck she is talking about??? You dont say.
Now what is the relevant law. Here you go.
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2026/01/11/minneapolis-is-not-even-a-close-call-a-lawsplainer-on-officer-involved-shootings-n2198004
Hey look! A lawyer who actually lists all the relevant law!
And by intentionally putting himself in danger, then refusing to move out of danger once the threat became imminent (one step to the right would have done it), he cannot claim self-defense (see Barnes v. Felix).
His intention was not to put himself in danger. It was to prevent her from leaving after they had told her she was under arrest and ordered her out of the car. You know, doing his job. Danger be damned.
Her intent doesnt matter. Her actions do retard.
Even if the officer did position himself in front, doesnt give her a right to hit him.
Its a retarded talking point.
https://www.thenewstribune.com/public/latest-news/lffeo6/picture314268354/alternates/FREE_1140/Screenshot%202026-01-09%20112313.png
Repeating retarded analysis multiple times doesnt make it right dummy.
Walz +7
Poor desperate thirsty bitch.
But it does preclude him from making a claim of self-defense (see Barnes v. Felix). It was not a good shooting and, under 18 USC 241, the officer is eligible for the death penalty.
We're either a nation of laws or we're not.
In much the same way as wearing a short skirt precludes you making a claim of self defense when someone tries to rape you, sure.
So, if protesters are blocking the street, it's OK to run over them?
In Florida yes.
Former NYC liberal mayor Bill De Blasio would defend it calling it a tough decision.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/claudiakoerner/nypd-suv-crowd-protests-brooklyn
Sounds good to me. Especially if I’m driving the Deathmobile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX71mALOPKs
Killdozer 2, Granby Boogaloo.
He wasn't in front of her.
Until her wheels spun out after she gunned the gas. That then put him in front of her instead of to the side.
How did the bullet make a hole in the windshield and strike the driver, if the ICE Agent was not in front of the 4600 lb SUV?
Was she "Detroit leaning"?
Thank you for confirming that the speed a Honda Pilot can reach in half a car length from a standing start is severely limited by its two-ton mass.
Take your meds dude.
"He wasn't in front of her.
Until her wheels spun out after she gunned the gas. "
Try reading more than the first sentence.
He did not place himself in front of the car. Her gunning the gas and the wheels spinning put him in front of her car. She then stared at him and drove at him.
Now, that's not true: He actually was in front of the car: He was walking around the vehicle, and at the time she hit the gas, he was in front, transiting from the passenger side to the driver's side.
Hitting the accelerator didn't move the car sideways.
But you got the "She then stared at him and drove at him." part right, and that was the important part.
Angles, how do they work. He wasn't in front of the car until she pulled the reverse turn. Now, he may or may not have been planning to cross in front of the car not seconds later, but that does not change the fact that when she started the act of reverse turning he was NOT in front of the car, and when she ended the act, he was. Her actions put him in front of the car, not his. If instead of reversing she had driven straight ahead, he would not have been in front of the car.
Having watched multiple videos from multiple perspectives, there is no reason that any officer should have felt threatened by two lesbians and dog. A gun was in no way and appropriate tool for anything that happened before, during or after the video.
You have them on video. You have their license plate. She was leaving her own partner behind. Shooting her did nothing to protect the cop from the car, even if she had malicious intent.
Reply to me and let me know what a raging cop sucker you are so I can update my mute list. Most libertarian comment section ever.
Awful but lawful. That dumb bitch put herself in a truly retarded situation because she's mad criminals are being removed, what a hill to literally die on. If I drove around my city intentionally blocking law enforcement officers with my car, I would be shocked if they simply ignored me.
A literally un-Warranted conclusion.
Remain retarded my friend.
You're clearly not a lawyer. The officer put himself in danger and then stayed in danger even tho he could have taken one step to the right and been completely safe. Legally, that precludes a claim of self-defense.
So, law enforcement has a duty to retreat?
I don't think so. Not if you have any interest in enforcing laws.
Bitch shouldn’t have tried to run over a cop. They were right to out her down. Maybe if more democrats share her fate they’ll finally back down. Or escalate things so we finally have the legal pretext we need to get rid of them all.
Leftist narratives repetition signaled. You all start out with the same claim. That you watched the videos. Yet ignore she fucking hit the cop.
You are the definition of cognitive bias.
I replied to you because you're a bog standard retard leftist who cant be shamed into understanding what the actual law is.
I lean towards saying it wasn't a perfect shoot or perfect self-defense situation but in the moment he wasn't wrong to assess it that way. She was focused on him when she recklessly accelerated. I doubt he or she had a clue whether another agent or bystander was in her path. In the totality of the situation she made a huge mistake while instigating the reaction and he made a smaller mistake because he had no way of knowing quite how unhinged she was. She probably only meant to flee, but I don't think she fucking cared if she hurt or killed him in the process.
This is why there’s no point debating with leftists.
This one is actually bizarre to me. The videos show the shooting was justifiable. It is on her to not charge towards him, not on him to avoid her. Violence was initiated by her. Following the NAP would lead any actual libertarian to the conclusion that she earned the bullet even if her intent wasn't murder. Reason is full of anti-cop leftists, so we aren't going to get that kind of response. To a normie, escalating to shooting feels like an overreaction, but the videos show it was his life threatened first.
That's not how leftists think. They think it's ok to lie.
You're clearly not a lawyer. The video clearly shows the officer put himself in front of the car and stayed in front of the car even as she hit the gas and the wheels started spinning. He could have eliminated the threat by taking one step to the left. Legally, that precludes a claim of self-defense, and makes the shooting manslaughter. In addition, Goods rights were violated, resulting in her death, making the officer eligible for the death penalty under 18 USC 241.
The thing that cops most seek, the thing that made them want to be cops, is compliance.
Renee Good did not comply with the lawful commands to turn off the motor and step out of tbe SUV. Instead, she responded by putting the vehicle in Drive and stepping on the gas.
Dobbs responded by firing through the windshield, killing Good.
Everyone knows it's SOP to shoot the dog, and she just got in the way.
Kristi Noem knows this is the way.
Walz +3
Glad the dog is alive. Sorry that he's probably stuck with the "wife"
It's weird that cops don't have a designated chain of command for giving orders to suspects.
We get it. Youre full of shit so throwing as much against the wall as you can.
I keep saying there are three posibilities
1: Officer did nothing wrong.
2: Bad Policing but legitimate self defense
3: Murder
All evidence leads to #2. The ICE officers needlessly escalated the situation. He positioned himself in front of the car when you never do that. He was too busy filming them to control the situation.
However, none of that allowed her to drive at him at close range. When she did that that, it's deadly force against a cop, and self-defense is allowed.
From the video, the shots were all fired at once. Cops always fire multiple times. That's nothing. It was all within reaction time, so even the fact that she started turning is not a valid factor because he couldn't possibly see that.
When you are less than a yard away on slippery roads, saying "jump to the right" is not legitimate. The "moving vehicle" rules consider a vehicle that is already moving, not one that is parked and that starts moving right at you.
We do not require our police to be omniscient. We do not require them to be perfect police to avoid murder charges. If the question was removing him from the force I could agree. However, this sort of precedent essentially says that they are unable to defend against legitimate threats until after its too late to do anything about it.
I keep saying there are three possibilities
You are putting zero ownership on Good.
There are 4 and 5 possibilities - Stay home and don't run. ICE can be heard saying "get out of the fucking car!" Good chose to punch the gas.
I do not think Good tried to hit the ICE officer, but she did decide to bolt. Even if it was a clean get away, ICE would've arrested her, impounded the car, and seized the dog.
Stay TF home.
I have a funny story about four of us getting pulled over by 3 cop cars. For no reason I might add. It was a bullshit stop. We complied, they gave us some shit, they let us go. I can tell people that story because we didn't do what they did.
Except you are now bringing in a whole bunch of irrelevant data. Sorry, but that's the exact same game that the left tried to play with Rittenhouse. When we are talking self defense versus murder, most of that gets out the window. What matters is only the actions in the moment and whether the officer was reasonable in his immediate action of force.
Rittenhouse was a murderer also. He intended to go there to kill and he did.
Cite?
Slander.
Cool story, bro.
Walz +11
That was completely disproven during his trial, you stupid cunt faggot. And Rittenhouse is an American hero.
Fuck off commie scum.
Hahaha, doc is still big mad that he rid the earth of a pedo fuck.
Whats irrelevant? She was in the commission of a federal crime when she was stopped.
Im sorry you and other retards struggle with reality.
She hit him with a deadly weapon.
He was absolutely justified. Was not even close.
""You are putting zero ownership on Good.""
Liberals never take personal responsibility.
Yep, zero accountability, but republicans have endless responsibility.
Good paid the ultimate price. What price is Ross paying for not doing his job correctly?
Good was calm before that officer escalated the situation by yelling, "get out of the fucking car!" and trying to jack her.
""Good paid the ultimate price. ""
For what? The hopes of posting a video to virtue signal? Doesn't sound like a fair trade.
""trying to jack her.""
You mean arrest her for obstruction.
Trying to flee was a stupid ass move where the LEO response is a roll of the dice. Don't roll the dice.
Driving towards the officer was an even dumber move.
Hitting him was the epitome of stupid.
Especially with her front tires turned thirty degrees away from him.
He deserves a commendation. And now Good is finally a Good Commie.
I like how you think cops yelling to get out for a legal stop is escalation. Hilariously dumb take.
Your comment assumes that the well being of the cop (even after they make a grave error) is more important than the person the cop will kill. Person makes error, they die and cop walks. Cop makes error, person dies and cop walks.
Part of the self-defense law is that the aggressor can't claim self defense. Same needs to be true with police.
I'm standing still. The car starts moving. Who is the aggressor?
Tony is too stupid to understand. He just hates Trump and wants more illegals.
There was a clear aggressor here: the one obstructing law enforcement efforts, blocking a public roadway, disregarding lawful orders and driving a weapon, even if only for a moment, at an officer.
Yes.
That is part of the responsibility we put on police. The duties and responsibilities we put on them DO give them more leeway for use of force than an average person. And there is a much higher bar for them to be considered there aggressor.
Importantly, you do not have the right to self-defense against being arrested. They were telling her to get out of the car. She was being arrested for traffic violations and interfering with the police. So any and all force she used was illegitimate on its face. If the cop hadn't shot (assuming she didn't run him over), the charges would include resisting arrest and aggravated assault.
The video clearly shows who was the aggressor. It was the cops. Traffic violations does not make one liable for summary execution.
We need to recognize that the moment a cop violates the law, they lose any special self-defense protections. For example, if a cop illegally breaks into your house you should be able to shoot them like any other criminal breaking into your house. If I cop kidnaps you, you have the right to fight them. If a cop tries to rape you, you have the right to fight them. If a cop attacks you and starts to beat you, you have the right to fight back. Only the fascist bootlickers want to cops special permission to commit crimes.
Choosing to run when a cop has legitimately stopped you and recklessly hitting one of the cops with your SUV while you try to escape might inspire a deadly reaction. Do not play silly games with LEOs, even if you are initially in the right, and she was not.
Tony will never tell the truth.
""The video clearly shows who was the aggressor.""
Yes, but you keep arguing against it. I put it in terms a first grader could understand but somehow it flew over your head.
There was no shooting until she drove into and hit the cop retard china Tony.
More lies from commie scum.
Cops expect compliance with their lawful commands. Good did not turn the engine off; she did not exit the vehicle. She became actively dangerous at that point.
Continually saying "traffic violation" instead of "interfering with federal law enforcement" does not make it true.
Blocking federal LEO vehicles has become the new tactic of the Left. Seeing it everywhere. They prevent the federal vehicles from moving while the criminals flee. Then they scream about overreaction by the feds when the feds do something about it.
"Stop interfering, problem goes away". The alternative is "stop enforcing federal law, problem goes away". Most reasonable people prefer the first.
Please go hit some CCP party members either your car, see how they respond.
Or just stand in front of a moving tank.
There are few people less important than the recently ventilated Good.
Again, you Lefties were right. It is fun to watch somebody who I find loathsome shot in the neck.
Your homie is dead. Annoying Satan in Hell.
I agree with your take.
Best look at the tape Ben.
It speaks for itself as the most disinterested witness to this death.
Yeap. Appeal to a tape he didnt watch when clearly tape shows an officer was hit by a weapon, aka a car.
Standard training. Three shots, center mass. Continue firing until the threat is neutralized.
Oh fuck off you Antifa shill.
This whole rag shills for antifa anymore.
So fuck off and stop paying them money.
Or.,. we can just get rid of all you leftists. Which should have happened a long time ago. In any event, the only value here is created by those of us (non leftists) amongst the commentariat.
You should be thanking me for my extensive contributions. And everyone else as well.
Fuckwit, I'm not a leftist except in the eyes of you cultist clowns. And you personally contribute nothing but vomit and spit..
You seem upset. Please, tell us more comrade. Perhaps you would like to expound on the Great Chain of Socialism, or the teachings of Mao.
narrative's lost Elsa, let it go
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. She should have made wiser decisions, like not harassing ICE agents, and stopping when ordered to stop.
Dang, you sound like a sheep. Since when are Americans supposed to shut up and do what the fascists demand? What happened to all the 2nd amendment people who used to yell about countering illegitimate governments? Wake up and smell the sulfer, the anti-christ has tricked his minions and you are defending him.
Ok, now do Ashli Babbit.
Since when are Americans supposed to shut up and do what the fascists demand?
Since the "fascists" are law enforcement officers engaged in legitimate law enforcement activities and you're a flagrant law-breaker they're trying to detain.
Marxism, insurrection, and treason aren’t ok. If anything, we’ve been too easy on your kind. You must learn your place.
Dang, you sound like a lying leftist. Leftists always lie.
Now they just need to die.
Part of Civil Disobedience is facing the consequence of getting arrested for metaphorically sticking your thumb in the kings eye in order to show he is unjust. Gandhi and MLK Jr understood that, shit even the college hippies protesting Vietnam understood it for the most part, sad that none of you morons seem to.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
I live in the land of professional protesters. (CA). They always have a cause to go protest against and wear their misguided mission as a badge of honor.
The part they fail to understand about it is, as you said, a willingness to face the consequences - detention and arrest - is part and parcel of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau himself pointed this out when he was tossed in jail for his actions.
But these professional protesters think they should be able to incite a riot and leave to go home when it's all over. They are unwilling to match their actions to their so called "beliefs".
It's all rather telling actually. As to what their motivations and committment to their "cause" de jour really are.
From a quick google search in the AI results:
"Minn. Stat. § 609.066 (Use of Deadly Force): Justifies deadly force to protect an officer or others from death or great bodily harm, covering situations where a vehicle could cause such harm."
"Video shows that Ross did in fact quickly move away from the front of Good's car."
Video does not show that. It shows the front of Good's car moving away from Ross (as it was turning right). Video shows that the first motion by Ross is to draw his weapon. Video shows that the second motion by Ross is to move WITH Good's car and fire two more shots.
Video shows she hit the officer during a legal detainment.
Are all leftists just ignorant?
They mix ignorance with lies.
Im starting to think they really do believe their party lies. Orwell was a wizard.
Rooms of groups of people shouting rage at images of Trump does sound like something they would do.
The truth that sets men free is not the one high school debaters like Jesse want to hear.
I don’t think you’re really in a position to talk down to anybody.
They believe ignorance is strength. Their party will tell them what they need to know.
It is amazing how a comment like this applies equally to the Dems and the Rinos in charge. Only the other party is bad/dumb/evil despite both parties using the same tactics and behaviors.
I’m just fine with cleansing the RINOs along with the democrats. Collaborating with democrats is unacceptable.
Bad policing all around. Why would Ross's partner try to force his way into her car while Ross is in front of her? That was very aggressive and severly escalated the situation. Ross's own video cleary shows Good calm just seconds before.
And why the heck is he filming her with a cell phone instead of a body cam? And why film her while walking in front of her car while her engine is running. And why is he filming her while his partner is aggressively trying to jack her?
Anmd why is the right trying to use PTSD as some kind of excuse? Sounds awfully woke.
All of this could have been tamped down if Noem and Trump didn't start lying within hours. All they had to do is admit this was crap policing, priomise to investigate, and suspend Ross and his inept partner.
ice now films encounters because these activists edit their videos know retards will fall for false narratives. Such as you repeating every dumb question you've heard democrats use on MS NOW.
She was refusing to get out during a lawful stop. Why would cops try to remove her you ask? Even children can figure this out.
Funny you blame trump and Noem despite the mayor, Waltz, and democrats screaming murder and lying about shit minutes after.
Youre not even a useful idiot.
When will reason make its comment section GIF friendly , so we can post an endless loop of the tape contradicting Jesse at seven second intervals ?
More lies. It's all they have.
Stay tuned to see if don't believe your lying eyes defense stands up in court .
You know we’ve all actually watched the videos right?
Is that the defense the wife should use?
""Why would Ross's partner try to force his way into her car while Ross is in front of her? ""
To arrest her for obstruction.
Should Ross have felt like he was in danger standing in front of a parked car?
This whole thing could have been prevented if they went for coffee instead of obstructing federal agents, ignoring orders, and then tried to flee.
How many of them have watched the video of 3 minutes prior to officers arresting her for obstruction?
Good almost even hit a different car trying to get around her obstruction.
They don't see that as obstruction so the concept of her being arrested for that bounces off the head.
Another four million libertarian votes might have mooted the whole Fourth Reich. Gary Johnson chose meek smiler instead of a bootheaded moron or Jesus Caucus Nationalsocialist as running mate. Ponyboy knocked 2 million votes off of Jo's clout and the GOP lamprey they fastened onto Chase Oliver completed the backstabbing. What the looters fear is the original LP platform that VOTERS like.
The LP is dead Hank. If you want to know why, just look in a mirror.
Word salad generator is in overdrive
Walz +4
You’re a propagandized Marxist fool.
“And why is he filming her while his partner is aggressively trying to jack her?”
Comical.
QUIZ: Aside from loaded pistols, which the Gestapo do NOT regard as deadly weapons as long as they are pulling the triggers, how many items in the video do NOT qualify as terrist weapons of aggression? There is not a leaf on a tree, tire, fixture, lamppost, tree, building, hydrant or blade of grass a psychotic with a bag of asset-forfeited meth or steroids cannot "see" as a threatening weapon justifying his initiation of deadly force. And Trumpanzee-appointed harridans are there to see that non-cop cars are classed as illegal weapons henceforth.
Do you understand that you’re the Nazi Hank?
Ignorance is strength.
And so is advanced dementia, apparently.
There is not a leaf on a tree, tire, fixture, lamppost, tree, building, hydrant or blade of grass a psychotic with a bag of asset-forfeited meth or steroids cannot "see" as a threatening weapon justifying his initiation of deadly force.
The Gestapo murderer told Noem he thought he'd seen a dog in the front seat. Now she wants Congress to give him the Medal of Honor.
Walz +8
He should definitely get a commendation. And don’t forget, when a Marxist is put down, an angel gets it’s wings.
You know who else?
"Ross' conduct prior to the shooting raises a couple of questions. First, why did he record the scene with his cell phone, keeping one of his hands occupied during a potentially dangerous encounter with someone Noem describes as a domestic terrorist?"
Concerns that Leftists would lie, completely, about what happened?
Which, mind you, they did.
Of course they did. Democrats are incapable of honesty or ethics in any way.
Second, why did Ross position himself in front of the car, which by Noem's account exposed him to the threat that justified firing his weapon?
Because then he could shoot her and claim justification? We know that this is a thing - rare, but not unheard of.
Rewatch the video. He ended up "in front" when her wheels spun as she gunned the gas at first. He was to the side until her actions changed the trajectory of the car.
The only thing he did wrong? He stopped firing. We should have been able to read a newspaper through her head and neck.
You'd be quite satisfied if he'd just walked up to the motionless car and shot her three times in the head, of course.
That’s not what he said. Swing and a miss guvnah.
If it were the Capitol Police and a J6 protestor you would be cheering it on.
A decent respect for the Bill of Rights demands the extension of 8 U.S.C. § 1385 ( AKA the Posse Comitatus act) to ICE, and related paramilitary forces, much as the Air Force Navy and Marines were added between 1956 and 2021.
Thank you RetardGPT.
Are you saying that PE is a form of artificial stupidity?
You just failed the Turing test.
That makes no sense as a response to me asking Jesse a question. You really are a retard.
This is a giant fail as an analysis.
She parked perpendicularly on the road. For her to either drive over the officer or simply drive away in the opposite direction, she has to complete a 3 point turn. Obviously the wheels would be turned "away" from the cop, before it can be straightened so she can move forward.
She was never given the option to leave. You don't commit obstruction of justice and be allowed to leave. But let's say she was. Replace the two cops near that car with two kids. Would you be still be backing up when a there's a kid in contact with the door? Would you rev up and hit D when there's a kid maybe a foot away from the left headlight? You wouldn't call that reckless? The sudden acceleration and loud thud is unmistakable in the video. As is "Drive baby drive"
Make up your minds on the officer's position. Was he never in front of the car, just got dinged, and thus shot her for no reason, or did he "violate traffic stop standards" and stand directly in front of the car? How did he not get creamed once she sped up? IF he WAS standing right in front of the car, then how is her shifting to D anything other than intent to harm him?
This is colloquially known as "coping". You can't handle the plain truth, so you try to invent some random scenarios in which you can be proven right. The entire world saw an hostile, bullying agitator try to run over a cop. Congratulations, you're playing for team Cochran now, who said DNA evidence can be discarded if a cop said some racist things in the past.
Was he never in front of the car, just got dinged, and thus shot her for no reason, or did he "violate traffic stop standards" and stand directly in front of the car?
Next week Sullum will have a leaked copy of the MN ICE Departmental Leave calendar showing that Ross was supposed to be off that day.
"you try to invent some random scenarios" which create reasonable doubt in a juror's mind.
I once worked with a defense lawyer who used that as his mantra. Often running his alternative narratives by use office colleagues as he was preparing for trial to see how they might fly when he presented to a jury.
I called him out for lying. He would reply that it wasn't lying and that it was legal. He could just make up alternatives like that.
Jonathan Ross positioned himself in front of Good's car
More "He shouldn't have been there." from Reason "BORDURZ IZ KONSTRUKTZ!" Magazine.
JesseAz said Reason's take on this incident was as bad as the take on Kyle Rittenhouse, I disagreed, but they're certainly putting the car in park and spinning the wheels to get there.
You know you've lost the narrative:
Renee Good’s wife claimed Minneapolis shooting was ‘my fault’ in video amid anti-ICE fury
Revealed: ICE shooter has an IMMIGRANT Filipina wife and is an Iraq veteran as father comes to his defense
So, at this point (moving past my utter lack of incredulity that someone has a Filipina wife), it looks like Renee Good was sacrificed to push the news cycle away from Tim Walz and Somali fraud.
I said right from the beginning she’s more likely to be in legal trouble than the officer. Everything that’s come out since has supported that conclusion.
Law enforcement officers are trained not to stand in front of a car during a traffic stop
As a practical matter, not a legal one.
As a legal one, this isn't New York and Ross isn't a mime, so you aren't legally justified in running him over for jaywalking, even if you are just fleeing the scene.
https://www.thenewstribune.com/public/latest-news/lffeo6/picture314268354/alternates/FREE_1140/Screenshot%202026-01-09%20112313.png
Reason is acting up again, apologies if this is a double post.
Nobody cares.
And why post a screenshot and not a link to the post?
Another incident of RetardGPT?
"Second, why did Ross position himself in front of the car"?
The video shows clearly that he did not "position" himself anywhere, he walked completely around the car, checking the other side, and the front, which certainly was reasonable.
If he did stop moving it wasn't until she gunned the engine, and left him flat footed.
Pretty telling when people have to frame what happened, with terms like "wasn't run over" would it have been better if she had more time to.accelerate and knocked him 25' out of the way?
Or "positioned himself" like he stopped right in front of her just waiting to make a move.
Or "positioned himself" like he stopped right in front of her just waiting to make a move.
Even if he did, we have a whole host of complicating factors which keeps leading me to the inexorable conclusion that the woman behind the wheel was functionally retarded.
Like the Ashli Babbitt shooting, I tend to keep quiet about these things in the initial phases because I simply don't know all the facts. But in our Ashtifa Babbitt (Good) shooting there are some wider assumptions that we can make that suggest that Good played stupid games and won stupid prizes.
One of those assumptions we can make is that Good was distrustful of the general law enforcement apparatus as it exists in this country. We can make further assumptions that she (probably) believes that generally speaking, law enforcement is too quick to use deadly force in even the most minor of encounters and with the least provocation.
If Good actually watched or had any knowledge of actual, no-shit law enforcement encounters where someone is in a vehicle, surrounded by law enforcement, and they start gunning the engine and trying to escape, there is a VERY good chance that you will be shot from multiple angles-- and that's before anyone even begins to determine which encounters were justified, which were not, and which were 'on the edge'.
So from here we can start to draw conclusions from the initial assumptions. If Good (assumption) believes that law enforcement as a rule are apt to use deadly force with the least provocation, then she willingly put herself into a deadly situation using a vehicle which can in fact be an incredibly deadly weapon, as Christmas Market goers will attest. And she drove it into the middle of a law enforcement situation. And she continued to maneuver the vehicle once she was surrounded by on-foot law enforcement.
I have come to the same conclusion some self defense experts have come to: Good was very likely not trying to kill the officer, but the officer was justified in shooting Good because under the totality of the circumstances, he couldn't know that.
One forensic deep dive of the situation suggests that Good was likely focused on the officer trying to open her driver's door, and she gunned the engine in an attempt to thwart him pulling her out of the vehicle, not realizing that Ross had stepped in front of her vehicle. It's an unfortunate situation, but it's one Good put herself in, and died as a result.
The ICE Agent Who Killed Renee Good Disregarded Traffic Stop Guidelines
How you tell me you're at step 2* without telling me you're at step 2. This headline alone tells me that you've come to the painfully uncomfortable conclusion that the circumstances of the shooting itself were justified, so now you're pivoting to "he never should have been in Minneapolis".
1. It wasn't justified.2. Ok, it was technically justified, but procedures weren't followed leading up to the shooting.
3. The ICE agent voted for Trump.
4. Shut up racist.
These dumb fuckers are trying to start riots with the old white church ladies from the ICE demonstrations. And for real riots, your victim needs to be black. Back to the drawing board for Team Blue.
BTW, there doesn’t seem to be many black folx at these ICE demonstrations.
Weird.
BLM did try to jump in and restart their grift engine.
"But it does suggest that Good, who was monitoring ICE activities in Minneapolis and attracted attention because she was blocking a lane of traffic on Portland Avenue, was trying to leave the scene rather than trying to run Ross down."
She was not "monitoring ICE activities", she blocked the road was honking the horn nonstop and directing the protest. All seen and heard on the video.
Once more- At the time of the incident, she had no option to leave. The cops ordered her out of the car. The time for her to leave was the first 5-10 minutes she positioned her car to block traffic, when officers undoubtedly told her her to "remove your vehicle". When that didn't happen, and officers approached her car and even put his arm inside the car, her defiance became unmistakable.
"Although Noem said Good "blocked the road for a long time," Ross' footage and the other videos show cars driving past Good, using the lane that was still open."
Apparently I can just block the road of an residential road as long as there's just enough space on one side to squeeze by. Pray tell, how does cars from the OTHER side get past me? Cars going both ways have to somehow negotiate the one lane that's open to them?
Of course, if a rando blocked a road close to police officers executing an arrest warrant on a wanted murderer, the officers should just give a rando the benefit of the doubt and tell to go away. I'm not talking about some guy who just drove nearby unawares, I'm talking about someone who parks perpendicularly on the streets and starts honking.
Its as retarded an "intellectual" analysis as you can get. Sullum's thesis is the platonic version of "why didn't they just shoot him in the leg?"
If there's a convoy of police officers and I purposely insert my car into the fray to try to thwart the officer's activity, this is no longer 'monitoring' police activity, ie calmly shooting cell phone video from across the street, I am hindering them in their duty. Even if I believe with all my precious 1960s merry prankster heart that their 'duty' is a bummer head trip and a bullshit hassle, I can expect a response, and once that response becomes "get out of the vehicle" while surrounded by law enforcement, you can expect that response to escalate if you gun the engine in an attempt to get away.
"Although Noem said Good "blocked the road for a long time," Ross' footage and the other videos show cars driving past Good, using the lane that was still open."
Holy shit. I didn't rtfa. That's hilariously stupid.
"And although Noem said Good was "yelling at" the ICE officers, she is smiling in Ross' video and does not raise her voice. "That's fine, dude," she calmly tells Ross as he approaches her car, holding up his cell phone. "I'm not mad at you." Ross moves to the rear of the car, recording the license plate."
She was being contemptuous. Passive aggressive. She had been in that obstructive position for 10 minutes or more and honked loudly and incessantly all that time. She was directing the protest. And when her belligerent wife yelled "drive baby drive" she obeyed, with a human being maybe inches away from the hood.
Sullum's mischaracterization of "she was smiling at him" is bad analysis at worst, and outright lie at even worst. Absolutely outrageous that he would try to gaslight this when the video is available for all to see on social media.
"and outright lie"
First time reading Sullum?
"The car backs up a bit, then moves forward, the front wheels turned to the right—away from the ICE agents."
If Sullum is referring to the 38 second mark of the alpha news video, I'm TRULY speechless. He either doesn't understand 3 point turn or didn't realize that the car was parked perpendicularly. See for yourself, if Reason lets me link to it -
https://x.com/i/status/2009679932289626385
"The bystander videos do not clearly show whether the car made contact with Ross"
This is a lie. Pure and simple. Not mischaracterization or misinterpretation. Simply a lie.
https://x.com/i/status/2009275450283921753
90% of this article is just a lie. No other way to put this.
All these videos have been posted here several times before. It doesn't matter to leftists.
They never give up the con. Never.
What scares me is that they actually believe it. It isnt just a lie... I have followed several Reason writers in social media, and they seem to actually believe these claims. Social pressure is so intense, they believe he wasnt hit, he jumped in front of her moving car, he was filled with rage and looking for an excuse, she never "hit the gas", the car was never pointed at him,... they even claimed that she never tried to block traffic.
It is utterly insane. Not "ooh, that's a wild thing to say" crazy... actual insanity. Several of them looked at the video of the wheel spinning and claimed that the wheels never spin. They watched the wheels pointed towards the officer as it started moving, before turning to the right and argued that they were never pointed anywhere except to the right.
And I dont think any of them were being disingenuous. I think they actually saw the 5 lights.
People are truly scary in large groups. The mind doesnt work like we want to believe it does in such situations.
Cue more shameless hypocrisy and terminally dumb Trumpery.
Scarcely a word this lot have written can survive being run as a caption loop beneath the five minutes of video their lying eyes deny.
We’ve straightened you out on this over and over. It was a clean shoot. Good did this to herself.
Case closed. You may fuck off now.
This place is a mental ward.
Of course it is an open and shut case. Of course it was a legal use of force.
How do I know?
Because I read about many such cases right here in Reason. Driving towards an officer is always ruled as a justification for deadly force. Always. And we have never even had a case where the officer got hit. Usually they are backing out, or driving around, with officers having plenty of space to move. Some are evennshot through the side window as they flee a parking lot.
Always a good shoot, even if the claim "i feared for my life" is exceptionally dubious.
Yet here we are with reason writers pretending to have amnesia. And worse, a collective delusion that allows them to say that a car that hit him wasnt pointed at him. The ability to watch a video and make claims directly opposed to the content of the video is truly scary. I think these people actually believe these crazy assertions, like they are in an Asch conformity experiment.
Outside of any moral judgements about what I think the right thing to do was, it is unambiguous that this was a good shoot from a legal point of view. It is also unambiguous that this is exactly how all police are trained to respond to a vehicle accelerating towards him. I know this because it is pointed out every time this happens. And every time, I argue that their training is flawed.
Reason has no excuse for feigning ignorance of things that have been reported here in Reason over and over across decades. Not ever, but particularly not in a dangerously partisan political environment like this, where people are using violence in support of their political stances.
Thank you! But the retarded writers, and even more retarded leftist commenters will keep pushing the big lie.
""If you're an agent," security consultant Jonathan Wackrow told CNN, "you should not be encumbered by anything in your hands. That's what body-worn cameras are for. But they're not wearing body-worn cameras.""
Really, the only valid complaint in the entire article. Yes, it should have been a badge cam. No excuse for the lack of a badge cam.
Which would have equally documented that it was self defense...
Except the phone camera really showed nothing to suggest self defense. Ross's video was mostly useless.
Just give up. It was a clean shoot.
The end
Frankly I don't care whether ICE's execution of someone was based on a minor traffic infraction or suspected terrorism.
What appalls me is that ICE wrested control over state and municipal law enforcement, basically trashing all notions of American Federalism. They imposed a twisted form of martial law based on the principle that when US citizens are infiltrated by non-citizens, foreigners, and even illegal aliens, the Bill of RIghts is suspended for one and all.
It smacks of government by runaway slave catchers.
You have your ideologically driven narrative and no amount of facts are going to dissuade you as you have already made up your mind to wave the bloody shirt.
It smacks of government by runaway slave catchers.
So... Democrats want to keep their slaves, by force if necessary, and you're appalled by the Republicans' attempts to get them off the plantation and send them back to their countries of origin? You do realize that many of the slaves from the actual trans-Atlantic slave trade were refugees and POWs too, right?
Walz +8
"Jonathan Ross positioned himself in front of Good's car and continued firing even after he was no longer in its path."
What Jacob Sullum neglects that approx 3 second transpired between the the car moving forward and the third third shot. That the first shot went through the front windshield and as the car was veering to the right and his evasion to his right (the cars left) the expected trajectory would move the shots from the front to the side.
This simple common sense that any person using logic would see. Unfortunately, there are deranged cultist we see what they want to see on both sides.
Police training may very well teach a officer to not stand in front of a car. Failing to follow this guideline would not be a crime. Police obligations are to remove cars from blocking traffic also, but obviously the Minneapolis police were not following those policies either.
The Minneapolis police have been battled and diminished since the George Floyd incident. Many officers left the police force with all the de-fund the police demands. Minneapolis is notorious for being a safe-haven for illegal immigrants who have long standing deportation orders. Minneapolis has a long history of not only refusing to cooperate with federal agents, but to actively resist.
While the death of the woman is tragic, the agent is not guilty of murder. She was not a uninvolved observer, but rather an active participant. When the agents demanded her to get out of the car, she should have complied and fought in court. Her decision to evade, placed herself in danger. One can argue if she intended to harm the agent or not, but there is enough evidence that there was perceived harm from the perspective of the agent.
Jacob Sullum seems to be implying that 3 shots fired in rapid succession while moving should have been grouped better. That the movement of the car and the movement of the agent in opposite directions have no bearing and signifies some sort of intent. This would constitute an absence of any sort of intellectual analysis and demonstrate a biased incompetence.
You can smell the desperation.
Hey look, history repeats :
https://embed.documentcloud.org/documents/1175645-perf-cbp-report/
This entire incident is a case study in failure of the ICE officer to follow basic procedures. First, as I have said elsewhere, any large urban police force would be trained to handle situations like that which occurred. Officers would have recognized the situation as annoying rather than threatening. Officers would have been trained to deescalate the situation rather than inflaming the situation. Officer would have better placed themselves near the vehicle and would have followed procedures regarding the use of deadly force. A woman is dead because of the failure of the officers at that scene. The officer in charge should be disciplined and Officer Ross should driving a desk for the remainder of his employment. I would note that this is the second time Officer Ross failed to follow protocol. How many chances to screw up do you get?
I disagree, given the report above. I believe standing in front of cars to justify shooting * is * standard procedure and has been for at least the past 13 years; at least for CBP.
On what do you base your belief? Nothing I have heard says that this shooting followed protocol.
Most police protocol I've seen tells officers to stand out of the way. CBP, on the other hand, has time and time again been accused of intentionally getting in front of vehicles to justify violent use of force. Their own internal audit raked them over the coals for doing just this type of thing that got Good killed. The report is 13 years old and here we are still talking about them doing the same tactic. This is why I say it isn't an accident, but standard ops for them.
This entire incident is a case study in how leftists think doing whatever they want and calling it 'protesting' absolves them of all responsibility for their actions. Blocking the street, even partially, in order to impede federal law enforcement is a crime. Failing to obey a lawful order to move the car out of the way is a crime. Refusing and then attempting to flee when lawfully ordered out of the car is a crime. Hitting a federal LEO with your car is reckless driving and assault with a deadly weapon, both crimes. A woman is dead because she thought she could do anything she wanted with impunity.
Lawfully order 3 times. At that point she is __DETAINED__. Driving away is a crime at that point in and of itself.
And that's the part where calling them calm isn't somthing to be so certain. Good was arguably not calm but sarcastic. Sarcasm can be a tool to mask disdain, anger and even absolute hate.
Becca, the wife, tries to get into the car when she realizes they're being detained. Here drive baby drive is arguably not evidence of calmness but of panic. Our lizard brains here things loved ones say and react without us really thinking. Did that add to the possible anger and/or panice Renee was feeling?
We'll never know.
Maybe they were calm. Maybe not. What we have isn't as clear as Mr. Sullum sees it. Or at least how I see it. God bless.
Her intent is not important legally.
You know who really ignored traffic stop protocols? Renee Good.
Would love to see more LEOs have the tire blocks that will deflate the tires. Those are just starting to get out and be used. The blocks have spikes so that if they drive forward or back, the tires will deflate. Mitigates the risks for everyone.
biggest falacy of this argument is that he put himself in front of the car. he did not. He was at teh side when she backed up while turning that put him in front of the car. then she drove forward also turning maybe to miss but she still hit him. second point about number of shots. when confronted with a person wielding a deadly weapon, yes a car can be considered a deadly weapon. then it is the duty to continue to stop that person and weapon since there is no way of knowing what her further intentions are. there have been plenty of people using their car as battering rams more than once.