Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line--this incident has to be formally investigated. Period end of story.

Would have been a more challenging investigation if he hadn't filmed it on his own cell phone and then either leaked it or uploaded to the cloud. Thanks, buddy.

I’m still shocked they released this video.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is all there is to it

No one has a constitutional right to drive a car into someone. A car is deadly force. It isn’t mean words or throwing snowballs or being salty to officers.

No one has a constitutional right to fire two kill shots into the driver side window. He'll have to try to make that case, though.

Officers have a right to shoot in some instances- a court will have to hash out if this was or wasn’t one of them. And the instances are based on how the officer perceived the threat in that moment, from their viewpoint

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This happened after the shooting of Renee Good. An ICE agent took offense at a woman filming him and threatened her indirectly: "Have you all not learned from the past couple of days?" He then knocked her phone out of her hand.

What an absolute clown. He didn't like being challenged on his threat, had no answer to it, and resorted to violence.

Has this agent been identified?

Anonymous wrote:I work for a major metropolitan police department in the South and let me tell you, any cop who handled an encounter the way this ICE officer did would’ve been strung up by internal affairs within 2 minutes.

1) No body cam (can you imagine real cops taking out their cell phones to film an encounter, breaking all manner of policies regarding privacy)?

ICE Agents are not required to wear body cameras.

Anonymous wrote: 2) Jumping out of a generic silver pickup truck with nothing identifying it as a law enforcement vehicle.

Your “major metropolitan police department” doesn’t have unmarked vehicles in its fleet?

Anonymous wrote: 3) Officers not identifying themselves and immediately running up and escalating the situation by screaming swear words and pulling on the door handle (no cop in a million years would do this; you keep your distance, make verbal contact first, deescalate, ensure the scene is secure—hands on steering wheel etc—then approach the suspect).

The victim and her wife had been interacting with the agents for an extended period of time. They were known to each other. There was no ambiguity. Law enforcement occasionally swears. Law enforcement pulls on door handles when attempting to extract someone from a vehicle all the time.

“Keep your distance?” This wasn’t a felony vehicle stop.

Anonymous wrote: 4) Accosting a citizen when there’s no report of her in distress or engaged in illegal activity. In other words, she’s not a suspect. If she’s impeding traffic or a law enforcement activity, you tell her to move along. If she refuses to comply, there are procedures for detaining her in a safe, secure manner.

The victim was known to the agents based on her previous actions that morning. Law enforcement has the authority to act on what they observe without being dispatched. There is a difference between impeding traffic and obstructing law enforcement activity. They were in the process of detaining her when she made the conscious decision to flee. That decision made things unsafe.

Anonymous wrote: 5) Firing at a moving vehicle, including through the driver’s side window, endangering other people’s lives who might be standing on the other side of the vehicle (bullets go through a car door like tin foil)

I don’t believe the agent should have discharged his firearm. I can’t speak to the agent’s assessment of a very dynamic and stressful situation in the split second his decision was made. That’s for the lawyers, judge and jury to flesh out and rule on.

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line--this incident has to be formally investigated. Period end of story.

Would have been a more challenging investigation if he hadn't filmed it on his own cell phone and then either leaked it or uploaded to the cloud. Thanks, buddy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you need to think about your critical reasoning and logic skills.

Even if we accept (and this is a flawed premise), that Nicole Good was a terrible person, that she was a paid trouble maker, that she deliberately provoked, that was breaking all sorts of laws... what is the logical consequence???

Not three bullets in the face.

Not logical, but it happened. Now her little boy has no parents.

Wow, really???

Do you think a stepparent isn’t a real stepparent when they are in a same sex marriage?

Disgusting. That boy has a stepmother still, one who adored his biological mother and will never let him forget her, her values and her love for him.

I'm sure she does and will love him and take care of him. Can't believe you don't think it's a tragedy to lose both your mother and father when you're only 6 years old.

Bottom line--this incident has to be formally investigated. Period end of story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go on.

Interfere with ICE agents during the course of their official business is obstruction of justice. That’s the law. That’s why the command to exit the vehicle was lawful.

The command may have been. Forcing the door open was not.

The command was not lawful. Don’t allow these clowns to gaslight you. This entire interaction was unlawful on ICE’s part.

You realize that ICE has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen if they interfere with their duties, right?

The command was not lawful. ICE has no jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws.

They weren’t enforcing a traffic law.

So WTF were they doing?

MAGA seems to have lost the plot on defending this.

It started off as Good was a domestic terrorist who drove her car into an ICE operation and sent one agent to the hospital. Now it’s just a general assertion that it was fine for ICE agents to walk up to her and coolly pump three bullets in her face because she wasn’t boot lickingly respectful.

The defenses are ALL over the place. They're clearly not on the same page as they await final talking points.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is all there is to it

No one has a constitutional right to drive a car into someone. A car is deadly force. It isn’t mean words or throwing snowballs or being salty to officers.

No one has a constitutional right to fire two kill shots into the driver side window. He'll have to try to make that case, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Go on.

Interfere with ICE agents during the course of their official business is obstruction of justice. That’s the law. That’s why the command to exit the vehicle was lawful.

The command may have been. Forcing the door open was not.

The command was not lawful. Don’t allow these clowns to gaslight you. This entire interaction was unlawful on ICE’s part.

You realize that ICE has the authority to detain a U.S. citizen if they interfere with their duties, right?

The command was not lawful. ICE has no jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws.

They weren’t enforcing a traffic law.

So WTF were they doing?

MAGA seems to have lost the plot on defending this.

It started off as Good was a domestic terrorist who drove her car into an ICE operation and sent one agent to the hospital. Now it’s just a general assertion that it was fine for ICE agents to walk up to her and coolly pump three bullets in her face because she wasn’t boot lickingly respectful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And this is all there is to it

No one has a constitutional right to drive a car into someone. A car is deadly force. It isn’t mean words or throwing snowballs or being salty to officers.

She was turning right. His gun was likely already in his hand when she engaged the gas pedal in DRIVE.

It's always danger to resist in a fascist state, and the more visibly you resist, the more dangerous.

That calculation is going to be different for every person.

Anonymous wrote:And this is all there is to it

No one has a constitutional right to drive a car into someone. A car is deadly force. It isn’t mean words or throwing snowballs or being salty to officers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you need to think about your critical reasoning and logic skills.

Even if we accept (and this is a flawed premise), that Nicole Good was a terrible person, that she was a paid trouble maker, that she deliberately provoked, that was breaking all sorts of laws... what is the logical consequence???

Not three bullets in the face.

Not logical, but it happened. Now her little boy has no parents.

Wow, really???

Do you think a stepparent isn’t a real stepparent when they are in a same sex marriage?

Disgusting. That boy has a stepmother still, one who adored his biological mother and will never let him forget her, her values and her love for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you tell your own child to follow and harass the police for hours, then block traffic and then drive away once confronted by the police?

Would you tell your child to shoot someone in the face three times for blocking the road?

If after they blocked the road and then tried to run me over, yes.

Do you know the first thing an officer tells a drunk as they are pleading to be let go and they’ll take an uber? They say, in your condition we have no idea what harm you may have caused tonight in your condition. We are doing this for everyone’s safety.

In Renee’s case, it was her own safety she sacrificed, and for what.

Would you tell your daughter to get out of the vehicle and go with the unidentified masked men screaming in her face and pointing a gun at her? Or would you tell her to drive away?

I would tell my daughter not to disrupt a lawful proceeding and to obey the people she knows are police. In the victim's case, she brought a car to a gun fight.

That's fine, but what if she just happens to be in a place where ICE rolls in? There is no telling where these days.

I would follow all their directives and teach my kids the same. Don't antagonize. Don't taunt. Don't make waves.

Because the lesson learned is that ICE may murder you.

I live in a large city, value my privacy, and try to keep a low profile. I would never choose to taunt or show disrespect to any law enforcement person for any reason. When I ride public transportation, I do the same. Too many unstable, trigger-happy people in this modern world.

You fit the profile of a collaborator.

For anyone else interested in history, people like PP are the ones who enable the actively evil folks, through their immediate acquiescence fueled by cowardice.

Your opinion means nothing. Survival so that I can be a mother to my young children means much more to me than dying as a martyr and leaving my child with no mother or father. .

NP and I won't call you a collaborator. I totally understand and have been thinking a lot about the privilege I have attending protests because a) I am white b) I have the means to call a lawyer immediately c) I am I over 50 and my kids don't need me the way they used to. I think about these privileges every time I attend a protest with the awareness that 10-15 years ago, I would not have dared to make the same choices.

But that said, it would have been a choice to prioritize one responsibility over another. I would not have changed my understanding of injustice. And I would have been grateful of those who took on the risks.

I think PPs are reacting negatively because sounds like you are implicitly criticizing the person who makes a different decision instead of criticizing the person who murdered her.

Thank you for taking the time to post this comment. Although not in every post, I have actually said several times that she didn't deserve to die and that he was wrong. I still believe we all make choices and that results/consequences may not be fair, rational, or what we wanted. Life can be very hard. My children are my priority.

BS. You’re trying to have it both ways. You’re a sniveling coward and your tacit support of this terroristic regime will actually HARM your children whom you claim to prioritize.

Your problem is you think you have control. You think people like Good made irresponsible CHOICES that naturally led to being MURDERED. And if you just don’t make the “wrong” choices it can’t possibly happen to you.

If you want to stay out of it, then just stay out of it. No one would blame you . But you are actively maligning this poor woman with your FAFO adjacent BS. It’s gross.

You love to argue and resort to name calling and fabrication to support your one-sided opinions. Have at it and enjoy your day!