Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Violating the use of force policy establishes his actions are objectively unreasonable, which is part of establishing he broke the law.

Are you 100% certain he violated the use of force policy?

Yes

Do you have a link to the DHS use of force policy you are referencing?

This is the DOJ policy. Federal law says the DOJ policy is the minimum standard for all federal agencies.

“Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

It’s really an open and shut case under this policy. Even if you think she was driving at him, he had the option of getting out of the way. How do we know he could have gotten out of the way? The did in fact get out of the way and the car went past him for a hundred yards or so.

Whether he was hit is immaterial. If he believed he could be hit, putting him in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm, deadly force is justified. Nothing that happened before the Honda Pilot was put into drive or after the shots were fired matters.

Anonymous wrote:ICE possibly kills someone at a gas station on Jan 11, 2026.

They take away a limp human after stepping on the person’s neck, possibly killing them.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=h3WmRaVrkOU

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Violating the use of force policy establishes his actions are objectively unreasonable, which is part of establishing he broke the law.

Are you 100% certain he violated the use of force policy?

Yes

Do you have a link to the DHS use of force policy you are referencing?

This is the DOJ policy. Federal law says the DOJ policy is the minimum standard for all federal agencies.

“Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

It’s really an open and shut case under this policy. Even if you think she was driving at him, he had the option of getting out of the way. How do we know he could have gotten out of the way? The did in fact get out of the way and the car went past him for a hundred yards or so.

Whether he was hit is immaterial. If he believed he could be hit, putting him in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm, deadly force is justified. Nothing that happened before the Honda Pilot was put into drive or after the shots were fired matters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Violating the use of force policy establishes his actions are objectively unreasonable, which is part of establishing he broke the law.

Are you 100% certain he violated the use of force policy?

Yes

Do you have a link to the DHS use of force policy you are referencing?

This is the DOJ policy. Federal law says the DOJ policy is the minimum standard for all federal agencies.

“Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

It’s really an open and shut case under this policy. Even if you think she was driving at him, he had the option of getting out of the way. How do we know he could have gotten out of the way? The did in fact get out of the way and the car went past him for a hundred yards or so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Minneapolis is an occupied city. ICE is Trump’s private army of thugs. Would much rather have illegal immigrants vs illegal police state.

And you is what is wrong with democrats in this country follows the laws and don’t have problem. If you want to protest protest congress to change the laws not interfere with federal investigations.

Interacting with Good was part of an investigation?

Part of the investigation was going through the neighborhood, house by house, in order to identify people who have a removal order. Good parked her vehicle perpendicular to the traffic, obstructing the federal agents in the middle of investigation. They politely to ask her to move the vehicle. She refused. They ordered her to step out from the vehicle. She refused, and began driving/fleeing the scene/disobeying the order of LEO. At the same time her wife/girlfriend/husband was in a close proximity to the LEO, inciting Good to flee or to run over the officer.

The jury will convict this guy with evidence, not a false MAGA narrative like yours.

We shall wait and see. Wife's video still have not been released. You would think that would be the best case for Good, right?

Huh?? Not sure why people keep mentioning this. Why would you assume her phone is "best case for Good" ... is the wife's phone biased or something? SHe was son the other side of the car from Ross. We have the clearest possible angles.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Violating the use of force policy establishes his actions are objectively unreasonable, which is part of establishing he broke the law.

Are you 100% certain he violated the use of force policy?

Yes

Do you have a link to the DHS use of force policy you are referencing?

This is the DOJ policy. Federal law says the DOJ policy is the minimum standard for all federal agencies.

“Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Violating the use of force policy establishes his actions are objectively unreasonable, which is part of establishing he broke the law.

Are you 100% certain he violated the use of force policy?

Yes

Do you have a link to the DHS use of force policy you are referencing?

This is the DOJ policy. Federal law says the DOJ policy is the minimum standard for all federal agencies.

“Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here, totally horrified and disgusted by this incident: however, I will not be joining the rioters and those who seeking vigilante justice. The guy likely has a defense since the driver was turning the steering wheel as her wife shouted “drive baby drive!”

How was he to know if her intent was to flee or cause harm and mow him down? He was faced with a split second decision.

She was turning the steering wheel AWAY from him.

I wasn’t there, but the visibility through most windshields is not great especially in the winter with road salt and grime. What was he supposed to be watching? Her turning the wheel? The tires themselves? The wife exiting the vehicle , yelling and acting unpredictably? All simultaneously? Yeah, right.

A horrible and volatile situation. I hope that there will be scene reconstructions done to clarify the situation. Until then, I can’t be judge and jury (and neither should all the hysterical Tik tokkers and redditors.)

Maybe a clue he ignored was her smiling at him and saying, "I"m not mad at you, dude."

That was more than ten seconds before she reversed and turned her car to face the agent, and then accelerated.

When she pulled out of her parking spot.

Have you watched the video? There are no parking spaces that are perpendicular to, and in the middle of, a one way street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here, totally horrified and disgusted by this incident: however, I will not be joining the rioters and those who seeking vigilante justice. The guy likely has a defense since the driver was turning the steering wheel as her wife shouted “drive baby drive!”

How was he to know if her intent was to flee or cause harm and mow him down? He was faced with a split second decision.

She was turning the steering wheel AWAY from him.

I wasn’t there, but the visibility through most windshields is not great especially in the winter with road salt and grime. What was he supposed to be watching? Her turning the wheel? The tires themselves? The wife exiting the vehicle , yelling and acting unpredictably? All simultaneously? Yeah, right.

A horrible and volatile situation. I hope that there will be scene reconstructions done to clarify the situation. Until then, I can’t be judge and jury (and neither should all the hysterical Tik tokkers and redditors.)

Maybe a clue he ignored was her smiling at him and saying, "I"m not mad at you, dude."

That was more than ten seconds before she reversed and turned her car to face the agent, and then accelerated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP here, totally horrified and disgusted by this incident: however, I will not be joining the rioters and those who seeking vigilante justice. The guy likely has a defense since the driver was turning the steering wheel as her wife shouted “drive baby drive!”

How was he to know if her intent was to flee or cause harm and mow him down? He was faced with a split second decision.

She was turning the steering wheel AWAY from him.

I wasn’t there, but the visibility through most windshields is not great especially in the winter with road salt and grime. What was he supposed to be watching? Her turning the wheel? The tires themselves? The wife exiting the vehicle , yelling and acting unpredictably? All simultaneously? Yeah, right.

A horrible and volatile situation. I hope that there will be scene reconstructions done to clarify the situation. Until then, I can’t be judge and jury (and neither should all the hysterical Tik tokkers and redditors.)

Maybe a clue he ignored was her smiling at him and saying, "I"m not mad at you, dude."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might've heard that Minneapolis public schools went hybrid because so many families are in hiding. Well, a coworker just told me that today, during his kid's hybrid class, a kid's apartment building was raided onscreen.

- reports on twitter

Oh no. We should just let people stay in the country illegally because children live in buildings.

Why are you so fixated on people who aren’t doing anything thing to you? Getting rid of them is so important that you think it’s worth traumatizing children by making them watch their classmates’ families get abducted?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Really? Cause that's what he voted for. That's what he told his bros to vote for. That's why he screwed Harris over when she was trying to schedule an interview with him.

Maybe he should take some accountability here. Then people *might* believe him.