Red
Well-Known Member
Witness to ICE agents: 'you shot her in the f**king face'; says: 'I can't let this narrative of self-defense go any further':
ICE Shooting in Minnesota
- Thread starter LogGrad98
- Start date
Red
Well-Known Member
Here is my opinion on Minneapolis killing by ICE officer, and facts still matter.ICE agents are federal law enforcement, but their authority and use of force are limited by the Constitution. A US citizen cannot be detained for immigration purposes, and fleeing alone is not a legal justification for deadly force under Supreme Court precedent.Deadly force is lawful only when an officer reasonably believes there is an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm. That standard comes from Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner, and it applies to ICE the same as to any armed federal agent.In the Minnesota case, multiple videos show agents initiating the encounter, surrounding the vehicle, giving conflicting commands, and escalating the situation. One agent attempted to open the car door while others shouted instructions. The woman in a car, a US born citizen, appeared to behave frightened and confused.Video shows her backing up to avoid an agent positioned near the front side of the vehicle, then turning the steering wheel away from him in an apparent attempt to disengage. The agent who ultimately fired had apparently already drawn his weapon before the car moved forward.An officer placing themselves in a dangerous position, creating confusion, and then claiming fear does not automatically meet the constitutional threshold for lethal force. This case is not about immigration. It is about escalation, officer-created danger, and whether deadly force was objectively reasonable.Law enforcement does not get a constitutional exemption simply because propaganda moves faster than the truth.You can see clearly in the video that agent is pulling the gun while she is still backing up to make a maneuver to avoid hitting the agent and simply leave.
Red
Well-Known Member
Talk about a man divorced from reality: “Based on the attached clip, it’s hard to believe he’s(the agent) alive, he is now recovering in the hospital”. The full 4+ minute clip shows the agent walking to the crashed vehicle, back again as a witness yells “shame!” over and over, and then he drives off. If he was taken to a hospital, it was to make it look like she must have injured him.
View: https://x.com/ttpryll/status/2009029110706680188
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
This is from AI, so not sure if it’s meaningful, but the line that jumps out to me:
- If an officer is justified in using deadly force, they are generally justified in continuing to shoot until the imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others has ended.
AI summary:
While a police officer must justify the entire use of deadly force under the "objective reasonableness" standard, they are generally
not required to provide a specific, bullet-by-bullet justification for each individual round fired. The focus of the legal review is on the officer's perception of the threat at the time of the incident and whether the totality of their actions was reasonable.
The Legal Standard: Objective Reasonableness
The standard for evaluating police use of force, including shootings, comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor. This standard is one of "objective reasonableness," which means:
- The use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, taking into account the facts known to the officer at that moment.
- It does not rely on 20/20 hindsight or the officer's underlying intent or motivation.
- Courts must make allowance for the fact that officers often make split-second judgments in tense, rapidly evolving situations.
Justifying the Number of Shots
Officers are trained to use force until they have terminated the threat.
- If an officer is justified in using deadly force, they are generally justified in continuing to shoot until the imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others has ended.
- Because critical incidents happen very quickly, an officer might not be able to precisely count their shots or pause to reassess after each one. The number of shots is often less critical than whether the threat was still present when the firing stopped.
- The officer must be able to articulate the facts and events that made their use of force objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Review and Accountability
After any use of force, especially a police-involved shooting, a thorough investigation takes place:
- Reporting: The officer must file detailed reports explaining how and why their weapon was discharged.
- Internal Review: The officer's department typically conducts an internal affairs investigation to determine if the shooting was within department policy.
- Criminal Investigation: A separate criminal investigation, often conducted by a specialized unit or external agency (like the District Attorney's office), evaluates whether the force was legally justified.
—————————————————————————————-
However, I don’t believe showing in slow motion or half speed is messing with people. Of course it’s happening in seconds, milliseconds even, and the agent is wound up to the max, adrenalin-wise, but I wanted to see if he was in danger of death or physical harm for each of his shots. Certainly not showing a slow motion to somehow give a false impression of what happened, by removing the speed at which it transpired. I think the slow motion has a usefulness.
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
Trump Cornered on ICE Shooting Evidence After His Jaw-Dropping Insult to Slain Mom
President struggles to back up his claim that Renee Nicole Good ran over an ICE agent when confronted with the video.
Donald Trump dodged and ducked questions about footage that appears to contradict his version of events surrounding the killing of a Minnesota woman by an ICE agent.
New York Times reporters confronted the president in a group interview in the Oval Office on Wednesday after the death of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother. “It’s a terrible scene,” Trump eventually conceded, having otherwise stuck to his original narrative. “I think it’s horrible to watch. No, I hate to see it.”
Video circulating on social media on Wednesday morning showed an ICE agentyelling at Good on a Minneapolis street, telling her to get out of the “f---ing car” as he approached her SUV. As Good appears to pull away in the clip, another agent toward the front of the car removes his gun and takes three shots.
The fatal shooting has shocked the nation, as has Trump’s initial response. “The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, who then violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense,” he wrote on Truth Social not long after the news broke.
“Based on the attached clip, it is hard to believe he is alive, but is now recovering in the hospital,” he went on. “We need to stand by and protect our Law Enforcement Officers from this Radical Left Movement of Violence and Hate!”
Times reporters pressed the president on that version of events at their Oval Office meeting later that day. “That was a vicious situation that took place,” he initially said, in what was taken as a reference to his prior claim, unsupported by the content of the footage, that Good had “run over” the ICE agent.
The 79-year-old leader only doubled down to insist “she behaved horribly” as reporters continued to point out inconsistencies in his narrative, telling them, “I’ll play the tape for you right now.”
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
PJF
Well-Known Member
PJF
Well-Known Member
