It's interesting that people somehow think that impeding ICE agents who are armed with guns won't accidentally go sideways. I appreciate that people want to protest, and I support their right to do so peacefully, but I don't understand why anyone would think behaving in any way that might remotely be viewed as threatening wouldn't potentially have bad consequences.
I'm sorry she was shot and killed, and I'm sorry for the ICE officer who killed her. But it seems to me the situation could have been avoided by not harassing the agents in this way.
As I understand the law, officers are encouraged to deescalate, and specifically, to get out of the way of a moving vehicle rather than deliberately stepping in front of it and then using deadly force. they are also advised not shoot at a "fleeing vehicle," unless danger to life is "imminent."
The "imminence" was manufactured by the officers.
Some are saying that Ms. Good got what was coming to her for refusing officer's orders. That's like saying, "refusing officer's orders is a capital offense."
It's also like saying, "we are fine with officers being judge, jury and executioner."
I know from being an activist related to cases in my own town that all an officer has to say to be found not guilty of "excessive use of force" is to utter the magic words, "I feared for my life and for the lives of my fellow officers."
These two officers escalated a situation and created on their own the "imminence" that likely will exonerate them. The only hope for a finding of excessive force by these ICE officers is if the usual laws governing most local law enforcement about deescalation and moving vehicles do not apply to them.
In my opinion, her first mistake was to literally break the law by not obeying the officer when he told her to get out of the car. Had she obeyed, she'd be alive now. And yes, she disobeyed a second time when she accelerated. But the point of my comment was that this situation was escalated first by the officer manufacturing a situation of "imminent threat" when there did not need to be one. He did not have to decide to place himself in front of the vehicle. Doing so was likely against policy and training.
I'm not sure what you meant by Ross "was placed" in front of the vehicle.
When I slow number 4 down to .25, I see the Officer (the one who fired the 3 shots) clearly start to walk at :04 from left to right in front of the vehicle. The car is not moving when he makes that decision. By :05 he has placed himself squarely at the center point of the hood. At :06, Ms. Good starts moving the car. At :07 (when he is hit, I assume), the officer appears to clear the driver side bumper so that he is now on the driver's side of the car.
Apparently, he fired one shot through the front windshield, and the other two into the side window?
In other words, I don't see how he "didn't place himself in front of the vehicle," since he walked there from the left and crossed all the way over to the right.
Why is this important? It only matters if the policy governing ICE officers tells them never to position themselves in front of a car--moving or unmoving (as it does in my town, with municipal and county officers). Officers are supposed to prevent "imminence" whenever they can. I'm not sure these officers did.
To me, the wider question is: "have We, The People held the police to a reasonable standard for use of force?"
I'll rephrase. Ross was walking to the car. But only when Good reversed the car did the car point directly at Ross. If Good hadn't moved the car, Ross would not be in front of the car. That's what it looks like. I suspect the wife's recording would give us a better view of everything. But for whatever reason, to date, she hasn't shared it.
The ICE Watch Group training seems to train their attendees to do way more than watch ICE agents. They all appear to be be trained to agitate the ICE agents and escalate the situation right up to the edge of the law. Including blocking traffic. Good escalated the situation when she drove her car at the officer. The officer's escalation followed her attempt to run him over. Minnesota does have a duty to retreat law. The “Duty to Retreat” is a legal principle that requires individuals to avoid using deadly force, if it is possible to do so safely, before acting in self-defense. Essentially, if you’re attacked, the law mandates that you assess whether you can safely remove yourself from the situation before resorting to force that could potentially harm or kill another person. The officer had 2 seconds to assess his situation. Where was he supposed to retreat? She didn't stop or back up, she accelerated toward him. He assessed that she was trying to run him over since she accelerated the car forward.
Yes. All true. But in a court of law, it will also be considered whether the officer violated policy by unnecessarily placing himself in front of the vehicle in the first place. Most officers are trained to never place themeselve either in front of or behind a vehicle (moving or not), for obvious reasons. They are also advised not to shoot at a vehicle because of the collateral damage it can create to neighbors, passengers, etc. It all hinges on "imminence," and whether a judge or jury finds he (and the other officer) had other options in the seconds preceding the shots.
The ICE officer was initially to the right of the front of Renee's vehicle, he was not in front of it. Renee was backing up. With her wheel turned to the left the ICE officer comes into view in front of her vehicle while she's backing up. She stops backing up, then you can see she turned to the right. That change of direction by Renee placed the officer directly in the front of her vehicle. That's when she accelerated toward the officer. Her change of direction placed him in front. Had she stopped or had she been trying to stop I would agree that he was not in immanent danger. It was her acceleration that placed him in immanent danger. At that point I think it's reasonable to assume that she wasn't concerned at all about possibly hitting the ICE officer.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems what she did was attempted manslaughter.
I guess you are not disputing that he did, of his own volition (and shown on his own body cam), walk across the front of her car? But you are saying that the second BEFORE she hit him, he was safely OUT of the range where he would have been hit? Then, she veered into him (possibly deliberately) by turning her wheel to the right? (some say this was in order to NOT hit him).
My own opinion is that--at the very least-- she was entitled & delusional, thinking she could do whatever she wanted. Some podcasters (Jimmy Dore show, for one) are actually trying to argue that she had reasonable cause to doubt that ICE had authority over protesters, so could disobey orders. I sure can't square that with the police authority i see from ICE in my own town.
(some say this was in order to NOT hit him) - why not just stop, she accelerated.
"she had reasonable cause to doubt that ICE had authority over protesters" Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Plus...
I agree ICE has no authority over protestors. Renee was not a protestor carrying a sign on the sidewalk and/or verbalizing her 1st Amendment Rights to insult the ICE officers. She was interfering with ICE while they were attempting to perform their official duties.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 111, it is a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any federal officer or employee while they are engaged in the performance of their official duties.
18 U.S.C. § 1501, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully obstruct, resist, or impede a federal officer in the performance of official duties, including through physical obstruction, false information, or creating diversions that disrupt official functions.
It's too bad the local police in Minneapolis aren't allowed to cooperate with ICE to keep the protestors from violating 18 U.S.C. § 111 and 1501. That would be protecting the public and the ICE officers.
My opinion is the organizations behind the protestors and the Minneapolis city officials got exactly what they wanted, someone killed by ICE.
Yes, maybe not "wanted," but certainly stupidly contributing to the outcome.
And YES, of course! she should have obeyed the first orders.
There ARE, however, ATTORNEYS questioning whether ICE had any authority to conduct a "seizure,"i.e.--the legal term for the action the 2 officers took. They can only "seize" people who are interfering with the conduct of their specific duties--i.e., obstructing near an ICE facility, protesters blocking the passage of ICE vehicles or personnel or interfering with arrests and detentions. Those asking about their authority note this was a residential neighborhood, and that her car was not blocking passage in any case.
But Matt's question ("was it murder? Or self defense?") will be framed differently and sorted out only after a long and painstaking gathering of evidence. My interest (based on my police accountability work in my town) was in listing some of the legal questions that usually apply--e.g., 1) authority & jurisdiction of ICE versus local police; 2) ICE or local policy regarding deescalation & use of force; 3) policy & training regarding vehicles, fleeing vehicles, and positioning around vehicles (to name a few).
From my experience in Portland, this is administrative & civil, not criminal.
You should nor compare the 37 year old mother to a sexual predator. When the facts are against you argue everything but the facts. Ice agents were armed…the victim was not. You state she ran over or into an agent standing in front of her car. No, she did not. She was shot in the face by another one of the agents who surrounded her as an attempt to frighten her. I am sick of facts twisted by those who hope to protect their “poor agents just doing their job.” as stated by Meghan Kelley. What was their job? Killing fellow Americans?
It's interesting that people somehow think that impeding ICE agents who are armed with guns won't accidentally go sideways. I appreciate that people want to protest, and I support their right to do so peacefully, but I don't understand why anyone would think behaving in any way that might remotely be viewed as threatening wouldn't potentially have bad consequences.
I'm sorry she was shot and killed, and I'm sorry for the ICE officer who killed her. But it seems to me the situation could have been avoided by not harassing the agents in this way.
She's screaming “Why did you have real bullets?!”
What do you think is in an officer's gun?
So sad, so preventable,
As I understand the law, officers are encouraged to deescalate, and specifically, to get out of the way of a moving vehicle rather than deliberately stepping in front of it and then using deadly force. they are also advised not shoot at a "fleeing vehicle," unless danger to life is "imminent."
The "imminence" was manufactured by the officers.
Some are saying that Ms. Good got what was coming to her for refusing officer's orders. That's like saying, "refusing officer's orders is a capital offense."
It's also like saying, "we are fine with officers being judge, jury and executioner."
I know from being an activist related to cases in my own town that all an officer has to say to be found not guilty of "excessive use of force" is to utter the magic words, "I feared for my life and for the lives of my fellow officers."
These two officers escalated a situation and created on their own the "imminence" that likely will exonerate them. The only hope for a finding of excessive force by these ICE officers is if the usual laws governing most local law enforcement about deescalation and moving vehicles do not apply to them.
Did the woman not escalate the situation at all by driving toward the officer? It was only then that the officer drew his weapon.
Orf, what she was doing did NOT deserve deadly force/ WTF
Exactly
In my opinion, her first mistake was to literally break the law by not obeying the officer when he told her to get out of the car. Had she obeyed, she'd be alive now. And yes, she disobeyed a second time when she accelerated. But the point of my comment was that this situation was escalated first by the officer manufacturing a situation of "imminent threat" when there did not need to be one. He did not have to decide to place himself in front of the vehicle. Doing so was likely against policy and training.
He didn't place himself in front of the vehicle. See camera angle #4. Only when Good reversed the car was Ross placed in front of the vehicle.
I'm not sure what you meant by Ross "was placed" in front of the vehicle.
When I slow number 4 down to .25, I see the Officer (the one who fired the 3 shots) clearly start to walk at :04 from left to right in front of the vehicle. The car is not moving when he makes that decision. By :05 he has placed himself squarely at the center point of the hood. At :06, Ms. Good starts moving the car. At :07 (when he is hit, I assume), the officer appears to clear the driver side bumper so that he is now on the driver's side of the car.
Apparently, he fired one shot through the front windshield, and the other two into the side window?
In other words, I don't see how he "didn't place himself in front of the vehicle," since he walked there from the left and crossed all the way over to the right.
Why is this important? It only matters if the policy governing ICE officers tells them never to position themselves in front of a car--moving or unmoving (as it does in my town, with municipal and county officers). Officers are supposed to prevent "imminence" whenever they can. I'm not sure these officers did.
To me, the wider question is: "have We, The People held the police to a reasonable standard for use of force?"
I'll rephrase. Ross was walking to the car. But only when Good reversed the car did the car point directly at Ross. If Good hadn't moved the car, Ross would not be in front of the car. That's what it looks like. I suspect the wife's recording would give us a better view of everything. But for whatever reason, to date, she hasn't shared it.
The ICE Watch Group training seems to train their attendees to do way more than watch ICE agents. They all appear to be be trained to agitate the ICE agents and escalate the situation right up to the edge of the law. Including blocking traffic. Good escalated the situation when she drove her car at the officer. The officer's escalation followed her attempt to run him over. Minnesota does have a duty to retreat law. The “Duty to Retreat” is a legal principle that requires individuals to avoid using deadly force, if it is possible to do so safely, before acting in self-defense. Essentially, if you’re attacked, the law mandates that you assess whether you can safely remove yourself from the situation before resorting to force that could potentially harm or kill another person. The officer had 2 seconds to assess his situation. Where was he supposed to retreat? She didn't stop or back up, she accelerated toward him. He assessed that she was trying to run him over since she accelerated the car forward.
Yes. All true. But in a court of law, it will also be considered whether the officer violated policy by unnecessarily placing himself in front of the vehicle in the first place. Most officers are trained to never place themeselve either in front of or behind a vehicle (moving or not), for obvious reasons. They are also advised not to shoot at a vehicle because of the collateral damage it can create to neighbors, passengers, etc. It all hinges on "imminence," and whether a judge or jury finds he (and the other officer) had other options in the seconds preceding the shots.
The ICE officer was initially to the right of the front of Renee's vehicle, he was not in front of it. Renee was backing up. With her wheel turned to the left the ICE officer comes into view in front of her vehicle while she's backing up. She stops backing up, then you can see she turned to the right. That change of direction by Renee placed the officer directly in the front of her vehicle. That's when she accelerated toward the officer. Her change of direction placed him in front. Had she stopped or had she been trying to stop I would agree that he was not in immanent danger. It was her acceleration that placed him in immanent danger. At that point I think it's reasonable to assume that she wasn't concerned at all about possibly hitting the ICE officer.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems what she did was attempted manslaughter.
I guess you are not disputing that he did, of his own volition (and shown on his own body cam), walk across the front of her car? But you are saying that the second BEFORE she hit him, he was safely OUT of the range where he would have been hit? Then, she veered into him (possibly deliberately) by turning her wheel to the right? (some say this was in order to NOT hit him).
My own opinion is that--at the very least-- she was entitled & delusional, thinking she could do whatever she wanted. Some podcasters (Jimmy Dore show, for one) are actually trying to argue that she had reasonable cause to doubt that ICE had authority over protesters, so could disobey orders. I sure can't square that with the police authority i see from ICE in my own town.
(some say this was in order to NOT hit him) - why not just stop, she accelerated.
"she had reasonable cause to doubt that ICE had authority over protesters" Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Plus...
I agree ICE has no authority over protestors. Renee was not a protestor carrying a sign on the sidewalk and/or verbalizing her 1st Amendment Rights to insult the ICE officers. She was interfering with ICE while they were attempting to perform their official duties.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 111, it is a federal crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any federal officer or employee while they are engaged in the performance of their official duties.
18 U.S.C. § 1501, which makes it a crime to knowingly and willfully obstruct, resist, or impede a federal officer in the performance of official duties, including through physical obstruction, false information, or creating diversions that disrupt official functions.
It's too bad the local police in Minneapolis aren't allowed to cooperate with ICE to keep the protestors from violating 18 U.S.C. § 111 and 1501. That would be protecting the public and the ICE officers.
My opinion is the organizations behind the protestors and the Minneapolis city officials got exactly what they wanted, someone killed by ICE.
Yes, maybe not "wanted," but certainly stupidly contributing to the outcome.
And YES, of course! she should have obeyed the first orders.
There ARE, however, ATTORNEYS questioning whether ICE had any authority to conduct a "seizure,"i.e.--the legal term for the action the 2 officers took. They can only "seize" people who are interfering with the conduct of their specific duties--i.e., obstructing near an ICE facility, protesters blocking the passage of ICE vehicles or personnel or interfering with arrests and detentions. Those asking about their authority note this was a residential neighborhood, and that her car was not blocking passage in any case.
But Matt's question ("was it murder? Or self defense?") will be framed differently and sorted out only after a long and painstaking gathering of evidence. My interest (based on my police accountability work in my town) was in listing some of the legal questions that usually apply--e.g., 1) authority & jurisdiction of ICE versus local police; 2) ICE or local policy regarding deescalation & use of force; 3) policy & training regarding vehicles, fleeing vehicles, and positioning around vehicles (to name a few).
From my experience in Portland, this is administrative & civil, not criminal.
You should nor compare the 37 year old mother to a sexual predator. When the facts are against you argue everything but the facts. Ice agents were armed…the victim was not. You state she ran over or into an agent standing in front of her car. No, she did not. She was shot in the face by another one of the agents who surrounded her as an attempt to frighten her. I am sick of facts twisted by those who hope to protect their “poor agents just doing their job.” as stated by Meghan Kelley. What was their job? Killing fellow Americans?
A series of very bad decisions led to a tragic result. Renee was paying attention to her wife; not the road.