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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
""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.
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!
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.
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
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"?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh fuck off you Antifa shill.
This whole rag shills for antifa anymore.
So fuck off and stop paying them money.
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.
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.
They believe ignorance is strength. Their party will tell them what they need to know.
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.
""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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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?