Renee Good's family sues Trump administration over fatal Minneapolis shooting

[Earl]

'Sightseeing?'

Have you no shame?

Most of the people go the Capitol to sightsee.

“Something happened” as the Somalian fraudster said.

While discussing the civil rights of Muslim Americans after the September 11 attacks, she stated that CAIR was founded because "some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."

 

[T. A. Gardner]

None of which is relevant unless you're claiming it helps justify shooting her to death in which case it's relevant to an idiotic defense.

All of which is relevant. Context and the overall situation are relevant.

 

[BartenderElite]

Yes. That doesn't rise to the use of deadly force.

Again, I'd go back to the post of yours that I responded to.

You're moving the goalposts now. I assume because you understand your double-standard on this.

 

[BartenderElite]

Most of the people go the Capitol to sightsee.

“Something happened” as the Somalian fraudster said.

While discussing the civil rights of Muslim Americans after the September 11 attacks, she stated that CAIR was founded because "some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties."

On J6?

No one was there "sightseeing."

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Again, I'd go back to the post of yours that I responded to.

You're moving the goalposts now. I assume because you understand your double-standard on this.

No, I'm not. Babbitt represented no immediate serious threat to bodily harm or property. Byrd, like the other 6 officers present, could have done something actively to stop Babbitt without shooting her. Of course, the most egregious thing Byrd did was flee the scene immediately after shooting her. Since when does a cop, any cop, shoot someone and then run away from the scene?

But, then again, Byrd had a long history of being an incompetent fuck up as a police officer.

 

[martin]

All of which is relevant. Context and the overall situation are relevant.

Yes, relevant to an idiotic defense, as I said.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

They are when they have to be.

Then we can all agree that they were the ones that initiated the contact by acting as traffic officers.

She interfered with their law enforcement duties. That is why she was there.

She had to have actively interfered in a specific duty they were in the process of carrying out to have interfered. What duty were they performing? Traffic cop is not one of their duties.

You are now the one trying to defend Good's actions. That's your problem. Good was the cause of the whole incident.

Good may have been in the wrong but the federal agents were also in the wrong. Good's actions were not serious enough to cause her death.

Oh, so someone, anyone, can just park in the middle of the street and disrupt traffic when they want to hum? Good interfered with traffic by her actions. Her partner got out in the middle of the street and started taunting the ICE officers. That some agents went around her doesn't excuse what she was doing or somehow make it legal.

Once again, you try to argue that ICE agents are traffic cops. They aren't. Good interfering with traffic negates your claim she interfered with federal officers. The fact that some agents went around her proves she was NOT interfering with the federal agents.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Then we can all agree that they were the ones that initiated the contact by acting as traffic officers.

No, the ICE agents only had to react after Good and her 'partner' injected themselves into the operations the ICE officers were carrying out. The ICE officers at no time went looking to interact with Good. She sought to interact with the ICE officers. Good came to them. They didn't go looking for Good.

She had to have actively interfered in a specific duty they were in the process of carrying out to have interfered. What duty were they performing? Traffic cop is not one of their duties.

She did actively interfere. She illegally parked in the street to create a blockage of traffic. She and her partner taunted officers distracting them from their duties.

Good may have been in the wrong but the federal agents were also in the wrong. Good's actions were not serious enough to cause her death.

Good was in the wrong. She was acting criminally. The federal agents went to stop that and Good decided to flee the scene in a reckless manner. That is what got her shot. Her reckless and criminal behavior.

Once again, you try to argue that ICE agents are traffic cops. They aren't. Good interfering with traffic negates your claim she interfered with federal officers. The fact that some agents went around her proves she was NOT interfering with the federal agents.

The ICE agents were forced into it first by Good's actions, and secondarily by the Minneapolis police not providing traffic and crowd control. The fact that some agents went around her does not preclude interference, and in fact because as you admit, they had to avoid her, she was interfering with their operations.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

No, the ICE agents only had to react after Good and her 'partner' injected themselves into the operations the ICE officers were carrying out. The ICE officers at no time went looking to interact with Good. She sought to interact with the ICE officers.

This is where you start to go off the rails. If they weren't looking to interact then they would have driven past her.

She did actively interfere. She illegally parked in the street to create a blockage of traffic.

Except it was possible to drive around her which means they were not interfered with.

She and her partner taunted officers distracting them from their duties.

Only after the agents stopped instead of driving around her.

Good was in the wrong. She was acting criminally. The federal agents went to stop that and Good decided to flee the scene in a reckless manner. That is what got her shot. Her reckless and criminal behavior.

The ICE agents were forced into it first by Good's actions, and secondarily by the Minneapolis police not providing traffic and crowd control. The fact that some agents went around her does not preclude interference, and in fact because as you admit, they had to avoid her, she was interfering with their operations.

ICE agents were not forced into it. Any agent that claims they were forced would likely be committing perjury since they were able to drive around her.

This is some pretty easy stuff. If someone stands in a doorway but leaves room for others to pass by and you then attack that person for blocking the doorway, would you be in the right? That is the same question any jury would use to test the actions of the officers.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

This is where you start to go off the rails. If they weren't looking to interact then they would have driven past her.

She and her partner deliberately chose to interact. That's how the agents got involved. Good and her 'partner' wanted to interact. That her partner got out of the vehicle, started recording, and then started taunting officers is clear proof of that.

Except it was possible to drive around her which means they were not interfered with.

They had to 'drive around her.' That is interfering.

Only after the agents stopped instead of driving around her.

The agents stopped because she was interfering.

ICE agents were not forced into it. Any agent that claims they were forced would likely be committing perjury since they were able to drive around her.

Clearly they were. They had to avoid her vehicle which was illegally blocking the street.

This is some pretty easy stuff. If someone stands in a doorway but leaves room for others to pass by and you then attack that person for blocking the doorway, would you be in the right? That is the same question any jury would use to test the actions of the officers.

Not the situation. Those that went around had to maneuver to avoid her vehicle. They possibly, likely, had to leave the traffic lane to do so. That means she was interfering. Or, are you really trying to argue that someone parking illegally in the middle of a street, even if you can still squeeze by them, isn't interfering with the flow of traffic? Why not go out and try it yourself? Park across one lane and a bit of an interstate highway and see if you aren't interfering with the flow of traffic.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

She and her partner deliberately chose to interact. That's how the agents got involved. Good and her 'partner' wanted to interact. That her partner got out of the vehicle, started recording, and then started taunting officers is clear proof of that.

Except the officers had to stop before she could interact with them. They caused the interaction. This is some pretty simple stuff that probably has a ton of case law supporting it. Yelling at police is a protected activity under the first amendment. Until you actually place your hands on the officer you aren't interfering.

They had to 'drive around her.' That is interfering.

Not under the law it isn't. What specific law enforcement duty were the performing?

The agents stopped because she was interfering.

Not under the law it isn't. What specific law enforcement duty were the performing?

Clearly they were. They had to avoid her vehicle which was illegally blocking the street.

Except they didn't bother to avoid her vehicle which they could have done. They could have driven around her.

Not the situation. Those that went around had to maneuver to avoid her vehicle. They possibly, likely, had to leave the traffic lane to do so. That means she was interfering.

Driving around someone is not proof of interference. Failing to drive around them is proof of being the one to cause the interaction.

 

[Into the Night]

Those are all different criteria than the post I replied to.

It's a double standard. There really isn't any way around that.

No, Barfly. It's a strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes.

No, Hugo.

 

[Into the Night]

Can you imagine if trump had pardoned over a thousand people who attacked law enforcement?

Why would he do that, Wally?

 

[Into the Night]

She had no right to be in the building. Start there.

How do you know this, Hugo?

 

[BartenderElite]

No, I'm not. Babbitt represented no immediate serious threat to bodily harm or property. Byrd, like the other 6 officers present, could have done something actively to stop Babbitt without shooting her. Of course, the most egregious thing Byrd did was flee the scene immediately after shooting her. Since when does a cop, any cop, shoot someone and then run away from the scene?

But, then again, Byrd had a long history of being an incompetent fuck up as a police officer.

Leaving the scene is a completely irrelevant point to the justification for the action he took. Completely irrelevant.

The mob was the threat - she was part of it. This isn't that complicated.

 

[Into the Night]

Ah, so you admit they could have avoided her.

She was blocking the road and interfering with federal law enforcement officers. Then she tried to run over one of them.

That is the opposite of what you have been trying to argue.
She was committing a traffic crime. They are not traffic cops. They are not authorized to enforce traffic laws.

She was committing a FEDERAL crime. It is unlawful to interfere with federal law enforcement officers. It is unlawful to try to run them down with your car.

Now you are testifying against the officers by saying their intent was to arrest someone that had committed no federal crime.

She was committing a federal crime, moron.

Not at all. I am laying out facts that the jury will be presented with.

What jury? You are not a lawyer.

You are the one deflecting by pretending that ICE agents can enforce local traffic laws any time they want.

She was committing a federal crime.

How did the Goods interfere?

Blocking the road. RQAA.

Ross drove around her vehicle.

Ross was on foot, moron.

The other agents could have driven around her.

They were on foot, moron.

Until the agents stopped and confronted them, the only crime was a traffic crime.

WRONG. It is a federal crime to interfere with federal law enforcement officers. It is a federal crime to try to run them down with your car.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, I'd go back to the post of yours that I responded to.

You're moving the goalposts now. I assume because you understand your double-standard on this.

Buzzword fallacies. Holy Words (moving the goalposts, double-standard).

 

[Into the Night]

On J6?

No one was there "sightseeing."

There certainly was, Barfly.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Leaving the scene is a completely irrelevant point to the justification for the action he took. Completely irrelevant.

The mob was the threat - she was part of it. This isn't that complicated.

So much of a threat that the other officer present, at least 6 of them, didn't use any deadly force, and in fact didn't even threaten to?