Federal officers blocked medics from scene of ICE shooting, witnesses say - "Emily Heller, a witness who lives near the intersection of 34th Street and Portland Avenue, recorded the scene as it unfolded. She told NBC News that agents blocked people from approaching Good’s vehicle. Her video shows a man who identified himself as a physician asking to check for a pulse and being rebuffed. “We have our own medics,” bystanders were told... The first responders to the scene came from Hennepin EMS, tied to Hennepin county medical center."
No surprise that the people who think men can identify as women think that anyone who identifies as a doctor is one. Of course, if they'd allowed that self-identified physician in and he'd screwed up, left wingers would still be blaming ICE. If he'd not been a physician and had just wanted to screw around, they'd be happy because then they'd be able to talk more rubbish in the absence of proper evidence
Emergency Medical Services in the Crime Scene - "In responding to a scene, law enforcement responders must determine the need for medical assistance, conduct a scene walk through, take steps to preserve and protect the area, secure and isolate the crime scene using crime scene tape or barricades, exclude all unauthorized personnel from the scene, and determine the lead investigator. Emergency medical responders should respect the efforts and needs of the law enforcement officials"
The Journal of Emergency Medical Services is so heartless. If you don't let anyone who claims to be a doctor in, you just want the victims to die
Meme - memetic sisyphus @memeticsisyphus: "This of course is the radicalization I was talking about. A law enforcement officer asking you to step out of your vehicle while you're committing a felony is their job. It's why we have police officers. These are lawful commands and you don't get to decide the law doesn't apply to you. Describing the basic function of law enforcement as akin to fascism, is childish and dangerous. We like to laugh it off as crazy lefties being hyperbolic on the internet but people are taking this rhetoric seriously now. It would be nice if one DNC party member could call out this increasingly dangerous rhetoric instead of trying to capitalize on the energy of the extremely online fringe."
industrial streaming information...: ""If masked agents are pulling you out of a car you should comply" sounds like the directions of a fascist regime trying to justify brutal repression not the behavior of a free and democratic country. Think about what you are saying"
Meme - Purple pussyhat character:: "MAGAT deserved it. *Ashli Babbitt*
Character: "Sucks the shooter missed" *Trump assassination*
Character: "Fascist had it coming." *Charlie Kirk*
Character: "SHE WAS PEACEFUL!!" *Renee Good trying to run ICE agent over*
Left wing logic: ICE are not allowed to defend themselves from criminals trying to murder them by running them over with cars, but if the Capitol Police shoot someone for breaking a window, this is good
Gene Parmesan on X - "lawyer here. if someone says they’re “not mad at you” they are allowed to run you over to death with their car. this is basic stuff. we all watched a murder"
Mehdi Hasan on X - "Okay MAGA folks, here we go:
1. If you want to defend the first shot he fired, how do you defend the second and third shots into the driver side window?
2. If you want to defend all three shots, how do you defend them blocking medics from getting to her as she bled out?
3. If you want to defend all 3 shots and blocking medical care, how do you defend him getting in the car and driving away from the scene of a crime, after calling her a ‘fucking bitch’?
My replies are open. You have to answer all three numbered questions."
Shipwreckedcrew on X - ""We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. 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. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.” Supreme Court, 9-0 in 2014. Plumhoff v. Rickard."
Pay Roll Manager Here on X - "1. Instinct. You don’t get to put someone’s life in immediate danger and demand fully rational and empathetic responses. Especially not the life of someone who routinely sees people dying or being harmed in those situations
2. She was dead and random ppl claiming to be doctors don’t get to tamper with the scene
3. Those ppl are rabid they might have done anything and he may have to do dump the rest of the clip. I can’t defend the rude language though he lost me there."
Rizzle on X - "I can’t believe he called her a ‘fucking bitch’ after she almost ran him over. What a monster"
Naturally, Hasan did not reply to people who responded to all 3 questions. When left wingers demand explanations, they don't actually want explanations. They're just grandstanding.
Left wingers spammed Hasan's original text and of course responded the same way to answers. No surprise
Bonchie on X - "Judging by the most recent posts, the final straw being grasped is that the driver sarcastically said, "Hey, dude, I'm not mad at you." Apparently, that's the key to this whole thing. If someone says "I'm not mad at you," nothing else they do matters."
Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry on X - "This is truly the most terrifying aspect of lib psychology. You can show them absolutely incontrovertible video evidence of something happening and they will maintain the opposite with absolute confidence and lack of shame, and insult you for disagreeing. To do this is to prove oneself as having absolutely no values or moral compass, and being able to do literally anything. To see them act like this is to gape into an endless abyss."
Mistake not... on X - "Actually the funniest part is that someone thinks a middle aged woman telling you “I’m fine. I’m not mad at all” means she isn’t mad Tbf some guys think that means she’s fine, and then are confused when she explodes 10 minutes later"
Orwell predicted that the party would tell you to reject evidence, after all
FischerKing on X - "You will never convince many on the left that the ICE agent in Minneapolis didn't just murder a young mother in her car. Remember Michael Brown? I knew a nice liberal woman who kept posting about his "murder." When the DOJ report came out - from Obama/Holder - demonstrating that Brown attacked the cop, tried to take his gun, and was killed in the scuffle - I showed it to this woman, explained to her what happened. The next year on the anniversary of Brown's death, she was again posting about his "murder" and putting up supposed quotes from him like he was some kind of great person. With some people they are just lying to keep up their narrative. For others it's just psychologically difficult to walk back a position they've made publicly over and over. Others are just dumb. But don't expect any amount of video footage or testimony to convince many people about this latest episode."
Adam Francisco on X - "Everyone who is acting like the ICE agent has the same visibility of the situation as everyone slowing the video down by 10x, screenshotting moments in time, looking at it from multiple camera angles, analyzing it frame by frame, are being disingenuous. Of course if he had access to all of this information we have after the event, he likely would not have pulled the trigger."
Maybe left wingers want law enforcement to have to consider so many things before deciding whether they should defend themselves, so it will make it easier to kill them as they hesitate
ICE Shooting in Minneapolis: What the Use of Force Law Actually Says | National Review - "A number of commentators on the shooting of a motorist by an ICE agent in Minneapolis have seized upon the Department of Justice’s Policy on the Use of Force, which was given a Biden-era revision in 2022 (all emphasis in the excerpts below is mine):
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. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
There are two problems with citing this policy as a basis for finding that the ICE agent broke federal rules on the use of force. One is the limited force of these kinds of policy manuals, which are internal department guidelines subordinate to federal statutory and constitutional law. The manual reminds us: “The Justice Manual provides internal DOJ guidance. It is not intended to, does not, and may not be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party in any matter, civil or criminal.” Internal guidelines are, of course, often cited as evidence of the standard of care and used to determine whether excessive force was used in a given case. But, as Jim Geraghty and Andrew McCarthy have already explained, the general standard of reasonableness of the use of force is what would govern this particular instance, with specific guidelines of this nature being merely evidence of whether the officer’s conduct reflected a reasonable fear of death or bodily harm to himself or others. But there’s also a more fundamental problem: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not a part of the DOJ and is not governed by internal DOJ regulations... Rather than being mechanically governed by specific rules, the standard judges the use of force “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight,” allowing for the fact that law enforcement officers (LEOs) are “often forced to make split-second judgments” and, “consequently, there may be a range of responses that are reasonable and appropriate under a particular set of circumstances.” While DHS policy encourages tactics for de-escalation, it also emphasizes that DHS law enforcement officers “do not have a duty to retreat to avoid the reasonable use of force, nor are they required to wait for an attack before using reasonable force to stop a threat,” and, in “an exigent situation,” can “use any available object or technique.” The policy strictly limits the use of firearms for warning shots or “disabling fire,” the latter meaning “to disable moving vehicles, vessels, aircraft, or other conveyances,” but it also makes explicit that this simply restricts agents from shooting at vehicles in situations in which deadly force would not be appropriate: DHS law enforcement officers are “prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy.” That general policy provides that deadly force is to be used “only when necessary,” that is when the law enforcement officers has a “reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.” In short, this is the usual standard — not the more specific rules pronounced by the DOJ. The DHS policy also provides that “deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject.” However, deadly force is authorized to “prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape.” So, again, ICE officers can’t gun people down just to stop them from getting away, but the fact that someone is fleeing doesn’t change the basic question of whether the officer reasonably feared that he or someone else was threatened with death or serious injury."
Left wingers keep spamming the same irrelevant chunk of text like bots/the NPCs they are. They don't understand the difference between shooting to stop a vehicle and shooting to stop a threat, or standing in front of a moving vehicle and standing in front of a vehicle which then moves, not to mention the problems of ICE not falling under the DOJ guidelines or that internal guidance doesn't create legally enforceable rights
Some drivers in China are intentionally killing injured pedestrians - "When a driver in China hits a pedestrian, that driver might get out of the vehicle to see if the person they struck is okay. But, more often than we'd like to think, that driver may then hit the pedestrian again -- with the full intention of killing him. It's called the "hit-to-kill" phenomenon... "drivers that hit a pedestrian will actually come back and hit them a second time, or even a third time, to make sure they're dead""
Some left wingers claim that Jonathan Ross was in no danger because he was so near Renee Good so she could not have injured him. Clearly no one has ever come around for a second or further round, so this must be fake news coming out of China
Hilariously, I see left wingers simultaneously claim that she can't have hurt him because she was too near him and that she can't have hurt him because she was too far away and he chose to get run over (often posting the Austin Powers steamroller clip). Clearly, both claims are correct
*This* Is Why the ICE Agent in Minneapolis Opened Fire at the Driver Who Reportedly Tried to Ram Him - "The woman was armed with a 3,000-pound weapon, and this was a justified shooting. It’s astounding how little liberals know of the law or—you know—physics, because the tragic case of Officer Amy Caprio is the reason why law enforcement will shoot you if you try to run them over. In 2018, Baltimore County Police Officer Amy Caprio was responding to a possible robbery when she confronted Dawnta Harris, who was driving a stolen vehicle. She ordered him out of the car, which he refused, plowing into her. The bodycam captured her murder. Harris was convicted of murder and given a life sentence"
The jeep was at a similar distance to her as Renee Good's SUV was to Jonathan Ross too. But left wingers believe ACAB anyway, much less ICE which is the "Gestapo"
Facebook - "This is bodycam video of Baltimore police officer Amy Caprio, who was ran over and killed in a similar situation to the Minneapolis ICE shooting."
Left wingers kept claiming this was completely different, but almost none even tried to explain how
William Wolfe 🇺🇸 on X - "If you're wondering why Renee Good's partner hasn't released her video yet, it's for one reason and one reason only: Because it's absolutely damning for her and Renee, and clears the ICE agent of any wrongdoing from yet another angle."
She could release her video and left wingers would continue lying. They simultaneously blame Ross for standing in front of a moving vehicle and drawing his weapon when the vehicle wasn't moving, after all
Eli Steele on X - "After the shooting of Renee Good, her family has received over $1.5 million in donations and the support of countless politicians. Here, Joe Abraham, the father of Katie Abraham—who was killed by a drunk illegal immigrant—talks about how @GovPritzker and others showed his family no compassion."
Uubzu v3 on X - "Kyle Rittenhouse shot three white people at a gathering of lefty agitators and all three were among the 1 in ~20 white adults who are convicted felons An ICE agent shoots one lefty agitator white woman and she’s in the 1 in ~100 white mothers who has lost custody of her own children These are not well-meaning people. They hate themselves, they hate the United States of America, they hate the universe for the crime of being born, and most of all, they hate you It’s ok not to care what ills befall these commie race traitors. They would slit your throat without a second thought for the crime of desiring a peaceful and orderly world for your children"
Commissioner Sean Morrison on X - "I am requesting folks to share this‼️👇🏻
A Rebuke to the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board
The Chicago Tribune editorial declaring that “every last American should agree” the death of a Minneapolis woman at the hands of a federal immigration agent is an “abomination” is a textbook example of unethical, ideologically driven journalism. By issuing a moral decree rather than an argument, the editorial board abandons its duty to inform and instead attempts to coerce consensus. That is not journalism, it is advocacy masquerading as authority. The facts that have since emerged matter, whether the Tribune likes them or not. The individual in question struck a federal officer with her vehicle, attempted to flee lawful arrest, and engaged in dangerous, criminal conduct that resulted in a rapidly evolving use-of-force scenario. These are not disputed abstractions; they are material facts. Ignoring them to construct a narrative of martyrdom is not compassion, it is intentional distortion. More troubling is the editorial’s audacity in collectively indicting Americans who refuse to accept its ideological framing. To suggest that disagreement makes one morally deficient is an insult not only to federal law-enforcement officers performing lawful duties, but to the very concept of independent thought. A free press does not declare dissenters an “abomination.” That is the language of dogma, not reason. This editorial does not seek truth, accountability, or even balance. It seeks emotional leverage, elevating a politically convenient figure into a symbol while erasing her actions, her choices, and the consequences that followed. That is how trust in institutions collapses, not because citizens are cynical, but because outlets like this abuse their credibility to advance ideology. Americans can believe in due process, lawful enforcement, and human dignity simultaneously. What they should reject is a media institution that demands ideological obedience, vilifies law enforcement wholesale, and treats facts as optional when they interfere with a preferred narrative. The Tribune should be ashamed, not for expressing an opinion, but for abandoning journalistic ethics in favor of moral authoritarianism."
Americans only distrust the media because of disinformation. The solution is more censorship
Dramatic footage from ICE agent's phone shows fiery confrontation between Renee Nicole Good, wife seconds before Minneapolis shooting - "“I just think it’s overkill,” Colleen Meyer, who lives a few blocks away, insisted, suggesting it should have been treated as a “traffic violation.”... The 72-year-old retired glass design salesperson added that she suffers from so-called “Trump Rage Trauma.” “I had a doctor’s appointment and I told her I had TRT, Trump Rage Trauma. We are all suffering from that in this city.”"
The US seems to be the only place in the world where people regularly attack the police and then pretend to be and/or are seen victims when the police defend themselves
Weird. Left wingers claim that Trump Derangement Syndrome doesn't exist. Maybe TDS should be called TRT instead
Honey Leach | Facebook (also credited as "Terry Leach") - "There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, as an actual attorney, I'd like to cite actual law. The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense At best, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty. The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were: Authorized under federal law; and "Necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties."
What a horrible attorney. Luckily other legally trained people called her out in the comments
Minneapolis Is Not Even A Close Call --A Lawsplainer On Officer-Involved Shootings - "the claim floating around social media that ICE officers have no jurisdiction over U.S. citizens is simply wrong. They are law enforcement officers with the authority to detain citizens briefly as part of their investigatory powers, and to arrest citizens who conspire to obstruct and/or do actually obstruct their lawful operations... Case law across the country has held that any kind of instrument that can be employed as a weapon — even if designed for another purpose — satisfies this provision. Not surprisingly, case law across the country is replete with instances where automobiles were used for purposes other than transportation, with the driver turning them into weapons. In 2017, the Eighth Circuit decided United States v. Wallace. In that case the defendant was charged with using her vehicle as a deadly or dangerous weapon in the parking lot of a VA Hospital. She was convicted under Sec. 111(b), and sentenced to 48 months in prison... a federal police officer approached the vehicle in a VA parking lot after he observed a person walk to and enter the vehicle after he directed her to stop. The driver then backed the vehicle out of a parking stall, ignoring the officer’s commands that she stop. After the driver had backed out of the parking stall, the officer positioned himself in front of the stationary vehicle and yelled to the driver "Shut the vehicle off. Get out of the vehicle. Police."... Wallace was convicted of violating Sec. 111(b) — assault on a federal police officer while using a vehicle as a deadly weapon. She did not strike the officer with the vehicle — he jumped on the hood to avoid behind hit. Does this sound familiar? The point is that Renee Good committed an aggravated felony against the ICE Officer before he drew his weapon and fired his first shot. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY STRUCK HIM WITH HER VEHICLE. As the jury instruction states, the assault is complete “if the defendant’s conduct places the officer in fear for his life or safety…” That means that when the ICE Officer fired his weapon, he was attempting to “seize” a fleeing felon... The use of deadly force is a reasonable seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes when engaged in for self-defense responding to conduct that is reasonably perceived by the officer to pose a threat of death or serious bodily injury to him or others around him. This is the second legal point that is being widely mischaracterized on social media — the Officer’s perception of an imminent threat of death or bodily injury is not limited just to the threat to himself, it is what he perceives as a threat to himself AND others in his immediate vicinity and the broader community in the direction of the vehicle’s intended travel. What follows is a BRIEF recap of Supreme Court decisions over the past 40+ years dealing with officer-involved shootings under the Fourth Amendment and the inherent right of self-defense and defense of others... One of the dumbest arguments being advanced in social media and elsewhere is the effort to distinguish between the ICE Officer’s first shot through the front windshield — presumably while he was still in front of the vehicle and at risk of being run into — and later shots that were fired by him through the driver’s side window after he was no longer immediately threatened. Besides this being a 20-20 hindsight analysis that runs contrary to Graham v. Connor, it also ignores a more recent 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court involving the use of deadly force against the driver of a vehicle... The totality of circumstances relevant to the ICE Officer’s decision to use deadly force would have included not simply that Good was a “citizen protester” concerned about the removal policies of the Trump Administration, but also that she had created a dangerous condition for others in parking her vehicle blocking a lane of traffic, had failed to comply with lawful commands to exit her vehicle, failed to heed lawful commands to stop as he put the vehicle in gear and began to move, the directions coming from her partner to “drive” while the Officer was in front of her vehicle, his observations of her and her conduct through the front windshield, her turning the wheel into his direction and bringing the front end around to face him directly, and then beginning to accelerate with the car in “Drive.”... There is not doubt that he was at physical risk of harm or death when Good reoriented her front end to face him while she reversed. When she braked, stopped, shifted into Drive, and hit the accelerator, he REACTED immediately by removing his weapon — something he had not done to that point because he did not perceive a risk until she did that. The nonesense about him walking in front of her vehicle ignores that she reoriented her vehicle’s front end in relationship to him when she turned the wheel one way while reversed, and the opposite way when starting forward. It may have been a poor choice by the Officer to expose himself even to the extent of making that possible, but that does not inure to the benefit of her by claiming he was in the wrong. That idea only exists in the fevered dreams of lunatic lefty legal beagles and idiots on social media. Many have mischaracterized the policy prohibition of walking in front of — or shooting into — a “moving vehicle.” Her vehicle as stationary, and the Officer had had already done a complete 360 walk around the vehicle while it was stationary and engaged with the driver. He may have exposed himself unnecessarily to danger by walking back towards the front a second time, but he did not do so FOR THE PURPOSE of justifying the use of deadly force. The policy prohibits an officer from purposely stepping in front of a moving vehicle to create risk of injury in order to justify use of lethal force. Same for the policy that prohibits shooting into a moving vehicle — the policy does NOT apply to use of lethal force in self-defense, it only applies to situations where the shooting is done for no purpose other than to prevent the driver from escaping... As a federal prosecutor, if tasked to evaluate the lawfulness of his decision to use deadly force, I would have cleared him based on these four images and the video source alone. No other video produced so far does anything to call that conclusion into question. What the driver’s intentions might have been are irrelevant. The one thing she clearly did not intend to do was to comply with the lawful orders she was given. As a result, she opened herself up to the consequences of the reasonable decision by the ICE Officer to eliminate the threat she posed to him as well as others."
Weird. Left wingers keep telling us that officers are not allowed to stand in front of vehicles
Meme - American Strong: "THIS is Renee Nicole Good?? She doesn't seem like a very happy, nor pleasant, person. Our attitudes determine our behaviors which determines our outcome. *Crazed woman in "Protect Trans Youth" t-shirt*"
Overton on X - "This will go down as a defining moment in Vice President Vance’s career. “You guys are meant to report the truth. How have you let yourself become agents of propaganda?” From the White House podium, Vance OBLITERATED a fake news narrative about the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, in real time, right to the face of the reporter.
REPORTER: “You said earlier there’s a left-wing network to attack, dox, assault, and make it impossible for ICE officers to do their job. So if everything you say is true, how does being part of that network justify being shot?”
VANCE: “Well, being part of the network doesn’t justify being shot, but ramming an ICE officer with your car—that justifies being shot. Not a good thing, by the way, but when you force somebody to engage in self-defense, it’s almost a preposterous question.” “I’m not saying funding some of this stuff justifies capital punishment. Nobody would suggest that. The reason this woman is dead is because she tried to ram somebody with her car, and that guy acted in self-defense. That is why she lost her life. And that is the tragedy.” “Now, there may be other violations of law and other penalties associated with those violations. If you are funding violence against our law enforcement officers…you should sure as hell earn a few years in prison.” “What is…sorry, guys, what’s going on here?!” “You guys are meant to report the truth. How have you let yourself become agents of propaganda, of a radical fringe that’s making it harder for us to enforce our laws?” “You just asked me a question that presumed this woman died while engaging in legitimate protest. She tried to run somebody over with her car, and the guy defended himself!” “Next question!”"
