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

[WCM]

If that's all that matters the agent is fortunate he's not facing a charge of first degree murder. When he killed her he was standing next to the car enjoying a clear shot at the side of her head through the open window.

Stop trying to reduce the scenario to a cherry-picked 1/100th of a second to try to make your point.

Prosectors, judges and jurors don't just look at 1/100th of a second and ignore all context. They are responsible for using all the pertinent facts in proper context to come to a fair conclusion.

At the very genesis of this tragic event, the officer was walking around filming her car, when she quickly started accelerating towards him. He reacted to that in self defence, and in the ensuing .5 of a second he drew, aimed, and fired his weapon, while the car came towards him, hit him, and moved past him. He put the first shot through the front window and two through the side.

 

[martin]

Self defense, bullshit. If a car begins to move toward you self defense is stepping out of the way, which is what the agent did. The three bullets were for pissing him off.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If that's all that matters the agent is fortunate he's not facing a charge of first degree murder. When he killed her he was standing next to the car enjoying a clear shot at the side of her head through the open window.

Now you are in insane territory. The ICE agent that shot her certainly did not plan on doing that in some precalculated way. At absolute most, a prosecution for involuntary manslaughter might apply. But murder? Not going to work here.

 

[QP!]

Self defense, bullshit. If a car begins to move toward you self defense is stepping out of the way, which is what the agent did. The three bullets were for pissing him off.

Officers are trained not to step to the front of the vehicle to begin with.

You stand towards the rear quartet panel so the car cannot be weaponize against you and to make it harder to shoot you if they have a gun.

Everything these ICE officers did broke the rules.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Stop trying to reduce the scenario to a cherry-picked 1/100th of a second to try to make your point.

Prosectors, judges and jurors don't just look at 1/100th of a second and ignore all context. They are responsible for using all the pertinent facts in proper context to come to a fair conclusion.

At the very genesis of this tragic event, the officer was walking around filming her car, when she quickly started accelerating towards him. He reacted to that in self defence, and in the ensuing .5 of a second he drew, aimed, and fired his weapon, while the car came towards him, hit him, and moved past him. He put the first shot through the front window and two through the side.

You are correct that judges and jurors look at all context.

As you point out, Ross was violating policy by walking around the vehicle so it was Ross that put himself in that position in direct violation of what was supposed to be his training. An officer can't place themselves in danger in violation of policy and then use that as a reason for deadly force. It seems you want to ignore that pertinent fact.

Then you also want to ignore the fact that Ross was not prevented from driving past Good's vehicle before he stopped. Did Ross violate another policy by stopping to confront Good? That is up to the judge and jury to look at the pertinent facts.

So the context you want to ignore is that Good was not blocking Ross from moving past her so the claim he was prevented from doing so is false.
Then you want to ignore that Ross violated policy by putting himself in front of a running vehicle.

Why do you want to ignore the context that raises questions about why Ross was even there.

 

[WCM]

Ross could have moved out of the way of the moving vehicle and then he fired when he was no longer in danger.

Stop thinking of "firing" as specifically meaning "the exact moment that the trigger was pulled the last 32nd of an inch before the hammer was released".

Firing includes everything between "identifying the threat" and the bullet leaving the barrel. Ie pulling the gun out, aiming, and squeezing the trigger. The first part of that is partially a deterrent stage, and the actual moment of truth is heavily weighted towards the risk at the instant the final decision to pull trigger was made. After that it's like throwing mechanics. Officers are trained to follow through, and adrenaline is allowed to be a contributing factor.

Remember that it is possible for your stupidity to elicit a response that is briefly somewhat disproportionate. IE, if you give an officer 1/10th of a second to decide whether or not he needs to shoot to save a life, then you just rolled the dice, and you have to live - or not - with the consequences. If the officer took ten seconds to beat her to death, that would be a disproportionate response... over a long enough time span where they should easily realize it's time to stop.

The officer did something reasonable, from his own POV, in that instant, given the amount of time he had to make his decision. PLUS, he was hit by the car. If the car didn't hit him then you could argue that he shoulda known it wasn't gonna hit him, but the fact of the matter is that he CORRECTLY determined the car was gonna hit him. That's definitely more than enough.

I feel like I need to say this to you for some reason: DON'T HIT COPS WITH YOUR CAR IF YOU VALUE YOUR LIFE.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If that's all that matters the agent is fortunate he's not facing a charge of first degree murder. When he killed her he was standing next to the car enjoying a clear shot at the side of her head through the open window.

First degree murder requires premeditation. I don't see premeditation to kill her. I see negligence and possibly emotional response to the fact that so many people were blowing whistles and making people aware of their presence.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

f

Stop thinking of "firing" as specifically meaning "the exact moment that the trigger was pulled the last 32nd of an inch before the hammer was released".


Firing includes everything between "identifying the threat" and the bullet leaving the barrel. Ie pulling the gun out, aiming, and squeezing the trigger. The first part of that is partially a deterrent stage, and the actual moment of truth is heavily weighted towards the risk at the instant the final decision to pull trigger was made. After that it's like throwing mechanics. Officers are trained to follow through, and adrenaline is allowed to be a contributing factor.

Interesting. So "firing" to you means pulling the trigger 3 times.

Remember that it is possible for your stupidity to elicit a response that is briefly somewhat disproportionate. IE, if you give an officer 1/10th of a second to decide whether or not he needs to shoot to save a life, then you just rolled the dice, and you have to live - or not - with the consequences. If the officer took ten seconds to beat her to death, that would be a disproportionate response... over a long enough time span where they should easily realize it's time to stop.

The officer did something reasonable, from his own POV, in that instant, given the amount of time he had to make his decision. PLUS, he was hit by the car. If the car didn't hit him then you could argue that he shoulda known it wasn't gonna hit him, but the fact of the matter is that he CORRECTLY determined the car was gonna hit him. That's definitely more than enough.

But you are ignoring context again. If he was hit by the car, he didn't fire until after he was hit by the car. This raises serious questions of the shooting simply being retaliation since he was no longer in danger when he fired. Being hit makes the danger past tense. Policy and training says the danger must be in the future.

I feel like I need to say this to you for some reason: DON'T HIT COPS WITH YOUR CAR IF YOU VALUE YOUR LIFE.

But then you completely ignore what you have said judges and jurors should take into account, context. I provided you with the policy manual which shows Ross violating policy. Ross put himself in the position to be hit by a car. Ross isn't absolved of actions he took that were in violation of proper procedure.

But since we are talking context. If Ross's intent was to arrest Good for obstruction, why does he pull out his cell phone and walk around her car? Is that proper procedure for making an arrest? Either he should tell her she is under arrest or put himself in a position to wait for back up to help with the arrest.

 

[Earl]

Her intent has absolutely nothing to do with it.

All that matters is that the officer who shot her had reason to believe that she was using her vehicle as a weapon against him, and that it could possibly kill him.
If she threw a small spider at him, and he shot her because he was an arachnophobe, he would still be guilty, because his "irrational" fear is not a "reasonable" fear. You gotta wear big boy pants to carry a gun. But a car coming at him is good enough reason to go "PEW PEW PEW!!!!"

There are a lot of others factors at play there, regarding why he was standing there, why the riots were happening, what specific crimes Good committed that day and what the chances of a conviction for each of them truly was, etc, but all that matters regarding the possibility of a murder conviction is "Did he have sufficient reason to believe that she was trying to run him over, to use lethal force?" That's IT.

Go stand 6' in front of a car that's running, and then imagine if someone started quickly accelerating to wards you. Even if they "barely hit you", they can still do a lot of damage.

One hundred percent.

 

[martin]

First degree murder requires premeditation. I don't see premeditation to kill her. I see negligence and possibly emotional response to the fact that so many people were blowing whistles and making people aware of their presence.

No, I don't see murder either. Aggravated negligence.

 

[martin]

Officers are trained not to step to the front of the vehicle to begin with.

You stand towards the rear quartet panel so the car cannot be weaponize against you and to make it harder to shoot you if they have a gun.

Everything these ICE officers did broke the rules.

Yes, and what's bothersome about the quarrel here is the degree to which politics has suck these people in its mire. It troubles them not at all that this woman in the prime of life, mother of a small child, had her brains shot out.

 

[martin]

Now you are in insane territory. The ICE agent that shot her certainly did not plan on doing that in some precalculated way. At absolute most, a prosecution for involuntary manslaughter might apply. But murder? Not going to work here.

Not responsive to the comment.

 

[WCM]

If a car begins to move toward you

That's a dishonest interpretation of his POV.

Try: "If a nearby car suddenly starts accelerating rapidly towards you..."

Do you see how my description is much more accurate than yours? Why is that always the case, hey?

 

[Earl]

That's a dishonest interpretation of his POV.

Try: "If a nearby car suddenly starts accelerating rapidly towards you..."

Do you see how my description is much more accurate than yours? Why is that always the case, hey?

Poor Marty.

 

[martin]

That's a dishonest interpretation of his POV.

Try: "If a nearby car suddenly starts accelerating rapidly towards you..."

Do you see how my description is much more accurate than yours? Why is that always the case, hey?

Try always the case in your ashcan of a mind. This “accelerating rapidly” vehicle moved less than fifteen feet during the entire incident, possibly less than ten feet.

 

[WCM]

Interesting. So "firing" to you means pulling the trigger 3 times.

Yes.
No one is trained to shoot once, wait a few seconds to see if it worked, and then fire again if necessary.

But you are ignoring context again. If he was hit by the car, he didn't fire until after he was hit by the car.

You are still thinking of the whole firing process as a 1/10,000th of a second thing, and it is not.

1. He hears/sees the car accelerating at him from close range
2. reaches for his gun
3. pulls out his gun
4. aims his gun... all of these steps are part of the deterrent phase, but also the firing process. At this stage officers would usually issue a verbal warning but he had no time
5. the deterrent phase is over at that point
6. at this point officers might stay in this awkward stage for a while, maybe they get to go into de-escalation stage, or maybe they have to "start shooting". In this case, the deterrent stage had clearly failed to work at the point where it became 100% apparent that the car was no longer capable of NOT hitting him, and he couldn't get out of the way. The exact timing of him deciding to actually fire would have been when the car was about to hit him/hitting him.

In this instance, the whole length of time between "Why the F is this car coming at me?" and "the car hit him/he started shooting" was measured in fractions of a second.

You had weeks to think about this and you still get it wrong. He had roughly 1 second.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes.
No one is trained to shoot once, wait a few seconds to see if it worked, and then fire again if necessary.

You are still thinking of the whole firing process as a 1/10,000th of a second thing, and it is not.

1. He hears/sees the car accelerating at him from close range

Procedure and the current legal standard is he should move out of the way of the vehicle. You say he did NONE of those things. That points to he failed to act properly.

1. reaches for his gun
2. pulls out his gun
3. aims his gun... all of these steps are part of the deterrent phase, but also the firing process. At this stage officers would usually issue a verbal warning but he had no time

In that time he could have moved 2 feet to his right and been out of the way of the vehicle.

1. the deterrent phase is over at that point
2. at this point officers might stay in this awkward stage for a while, maybe they get to go into de-escalation stage, or maybe they have to "start shooting". In this case, the deterrent stage had clearly failed to work at the point where it became 100% apparent that the car was no longer capable of NOT hitting him, and he couldn't get out of the way. The exact timing of him deciding to actually fire would have been when the car was about to hit him/hitting him.

In this instance, the whole length of time between "Why the F is this car coming at me?" and "the car hit him/he started shooting" was measured in fractions of a second.

Quick draw Ross? Time to draw a gun but not time to move 2 feet?

You had weeks to think about this and you still get it wrong. He had roughly 1 second.

But you are leaving out the context of why he was standing in front of her vehicle in the first place. Why was he there?
Is it standard procedure for an officer who stops to arrest someone to pull out their cell phone and walk around a vehicle taking video?

 

[WCM]

Try always the case in your ashcan of a mind. This “accelerating rapidly” vehicle moved less than fifteen feet during the entire incident, possibly less than ten feet.

Acceleration is the change in velocity divided by the time interval.

In this case, the car got up to a moderate rate of speed over a very short time interval (the amount of time it took for the car to travel the short distance to run into the officer), which means that it "accelerated rapidly".

If she was accelerating gradually, then she wouldn't be moving fast when she travelled the short distance toward the agent, and he could have easily gotten away.

 

[WCM]

Procedure and the current legal standard is he should move out of the way of the vehicle. You say he did NONE of those things. That points to he failed to act properly.

In that time he could have moved 2 feet to his right and been out of the way of the vehicle.

More lies and stupidity from Li'l dick... Shocker.

Which way do you go to get out of the way of a car that's rapidly accelerating towards you from a short distance?

1. L
2. R?

It was a trick question, stupid. Either answer was wrong. Cars have steering wheels, so if they're aiming at you, and you move to one side, they can still change direction and continue to aim at you.

 

[martin]

Acceleration is the change in velocity divided by the time interval.

In this case, the car got up to a moderate rate of speed over a very short time interval (the amount of time it took for the car to travel the short distance to run into the officer), which means that it "accelerated rapidly".

If she was accelerating gradually, then she wouldn't be moving fast when she travelled the short distance toward the agent, and he could have easily gotten away.

"During the January 7, 2026, fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis, the agent was standing directly adjacent to the vehicle, within just a few feet, when the car began to move."

Google AI