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

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Fact: Her car was originally aimed to his right, then she went to pass him on his left.

Do you know what a 3 point turn is? I would guess over 90% of adults in Minnesota understand what it is. When you back up with your wheels aimed to the left the front of your vehicle moves right. This caused Ross to be less in front of her vehicle and made it easier for him to move to his right and avoid being hit. Her actions caused her vehicle to be less aimed at him.

Fact: She is obviously turning her steering wheel to the right as she starts to move forward.

Once again, you fail to address why Ross was in front of her car at all.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

When you're [x number of] feet in front of a car, making a video on your phone, and react to the fact that it is suddenly accelerating rapidly towards you, how many feet is a chill distance?

Why was he in front of her car making a video on his phone? Is that standard police procedure?

Her fucking car hit him, and no one would just stand there and get rammed so that they would be allowed to shoot that person. No one is brave enough to LET a car hit them.

Who is stupid enough to be standing in front of a car making a video on his phone when they are supposed to be acting as an LEO?

 

[WCM]

That isn't very fast. (about 18mph) Much of that acceleration would have likely happened when Ross was no longer in front of the car but was beside it and shooting into her side window. Then acceleration can continue to occur even after she was shot. That is why officers are NOT supposed to shoot a moving vehicle.

But it's very fast consider how long she had to accelerate.
The car stopped accelerating after her IQ went down by 1 point.

He had time to put down his phone and pull out his gun but couldn't take one step to his right?

The car was turning while it was accelerating, so it wasn't clear which way he was going to have to step to miss its eventual path by his location.

Once again, you ignore the context of WHY was he in front of her vehicle. Why won't you address the issue of why he was in front of the vehicle. It will be very important in court and will weigh heavily on whether Ross acted properly or not.

He was there because he was filming the two dumb women and their vehicle.

He knew that they were stupid, but he wasn't expecting Good to try to murder him.

 

[WCM]

Why was he in front of her car making a video on his phone? Is that standard police procedure?

I would honestly like to hear his explanation about that.
Butregardless of whether or not he was "following police procedure", that doesn't mean that Good had the right to try to murder him, or that Ross no longer had the right to self-defence.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Speed isn't the issue. Force / kinetic energy is. F = mv^2. A Honda Pilot weighs right at 5,000 lbs. It is accelerating. That is going to be a serious amount of energy even at low speed impacting a human body.

I had to laugh at this. You take a formula and apply it wrong. Based on the way you applied this a Honda Pilot that is moving at a constant 60mph when it hits a pedestrian would have zero force and the pedestrian would be unharmed since there was no force. F = 5000 * 0.

Speed is the issue because that is required for the acceleration of the person being hit.

Not far enough that she could miss hitting him, since she did.

Why didn't he move out of the way? Was he too busy using his phone and not paying attention?

Videoing the situation as he moved around to the driver's side.

There is the problem. What law enforcement action is videoing with your phone as you walk around a vehicle that is idling? How is that an authorized action?

 

[WCM]

You take a formula and apply it wrong.

Just stop it.

I'm not, even for one second, entertaining the idea that a fuckin' leftard can manage a mathematical equation with more than one operator in it.

I know that you're just bullshitting before I read even one more word.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

But it's very fast consider how long she had to accelerate.

Not all. It's funny how you tried so hard to argue she got up to a fast speed in a short distance and now are arguing that she got up to that speed because she had a long distance. Muscle reactions under trauma could cause her to press on the accelerator after being shot. It takes about 12 feet for a Honda Pilot to reach 20km/h. It would have reached that speed at about the time the vehicle had completely passed Ross since it is 16 foot long.

The car stopped accelerating after her IQ went down by 1 point.

And there it is. You being the asshole.

The car was turning while it was accelerating, so it wasn't clear which way he was going to have to step to miss its eventual path by his location.

It is actually quite clear. Cars turn in the direction a steering wheel is turned. She was turning the steering wheel to her right.

He was there because he was filming the two dumb women and their vehicle.

Thank you for admitting he was not actually performing law enforcement duties. This is why the government will settle the case.

He knew that they were stupid, but he wasn't expecting Good to try to murder him.

I guess he will have to testify to that under oath and let a jury hear how he disrespected them and put himself in danger which makes him responsible.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I would honestly like to hear his explanation about that.
Butregardless of whether or not he was "following police procedure", that doesn't mean that Good had the right to try to murder him, or that Ross no longer had the right to self-defence.

Let's see if I have this right. A police officer could not follow procedure and could give a suspect a gun. The officer would then be within their rights to shoot that suspect in self defense. Is that the position you want to take?

Courts have consistently ruled that self defense can't be claimed if you created the situation. Courts have also found that law enforcement that places others in danger due to their negligence are liable.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I had to laugh at this. You take a formula and apply it wrong. Based on the way you applied this a Honda Pilot that is moving at a constant 60mph when it hits a pedestrian would have zero force and the pedestrian would be unharmed since there was no force. F = 5000 * 0.

Wrong. You obviously never took physics. Velocity squared is what the formula uses. Whether the vehicle was accelerating (eg., the velocity was increasing) or at a constant velocity (speed), that momentum coupled to the mass of the vehicle is what does the damage. Your version has the vehicle sitting still.

At the time of impact with the officer the force would be the first derivative of the formula where acceleration is in effect.

Speed is the issue because that is required for the acceleration of the person being hit.

Motion and mass, whether that motion is constant or accelerating, is what's important. No mass, no problem. No speed, no problem. Good had both going in driving that van forward.

Why didn't he move out of the way? Was he too busy using his phone and not paying attention?

He did attempt to. You can see it in the videos. The problem was that he couldn't completely get out of the way.

There is the problem. What law enforcement action is videoing with your phone as you walk around a vehicle that is idling? How is that an authorized action?

Here, you are presenting a red herring in the form of a strawman. It's obvious that he was videoing because the officers didn't have body cameras and that was a substitute for them. He had started out on the passenger side of the vehicle videoing Good's idiot "partner (in crime)" then he moved around the front of the vehicle keeping Good in sight as he attempted to video what the officer at her driver's side door was doing.

All of that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[WCM]

Not all. It's funny how you tried so hard to argue she got up to a fast speed in a short distance and now are arguing that she got up to that speed because she had a long distance. Muscle reactions under trauma could cause her to press on the accelerator after being shot. It takes about 12 feet for a Honda Pilot to reach 20km/h. It would have reached that speed at about the time the vehicle had completely passed Ross since it is 16 foot long.

And there it is. You being the asshole.

It is actually quite clear. Cars turn in the direction a steering wheel is turned. She was turning the steering wheel to her right.

Thank you for admitting he was not actually performing law enforcement duties. This is why the government will settle the case.

I guess he will have to testify to that under oath and let a jury hear how he disrespected them and put himself in danger which makes him responsible.

OMG, professor stupid is babbling again.

1) FYI the meaning of "how long" is not "long" you fuckin' twit.

Eg, if someone says "How long is the dinner table?" that doesn't mean that the dinner table is long.

When I said "She was going very fast considering how long she had to accelerate", the net effect of that sentence is to suggest the exact opposite of "long". It means that "her car gained a lot of velocity over a short distance". That means that she was accelerating as quickly as possible. That means that the engine was making a loud noise, and it looked like the car was being used as a weapon.

2) The car was not accelerating anymore after it hit him. It went the same speed for the whole time after it passed him.

That's because the strength of the return spring on a vehicle's gas pedal is set by the manufacturers to be high enough to ensure that muscular effort is required to accelerate a vehicle.

 

[WCM]

Let's see if I have this right. A police officer could not follow procedure and could give a suspect a gun. The officer would then be within their rights to shoot that suspect in self defense. Is that the position you want to take?

Courts have consistently ruled that self defense can't be claimed if you created the situation. Courts have also found that law enforcement that places others in danger due to their negligence are liable.

Of course you don't it right, dummy.

1) Just because he didn't follow proper protocol 100%, and he made a very minor lapse in judgement by assuming that she wasn't going to try to kill him
2) does not mean that he forfeits his right to self-defence, or that she gets to try to run him over

 

[IBDaMann]

in what statute or us code does it say that?

There isn't any. The Supremacy Clause empowers ICE to enforce Federal laws. Period. Local police are required to either help or get out of the way.



The Supremacy Clause

Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Just stop it.

I'm not, even for one second, entertaining the idea that a fuckin' leftard can manage a mathematical equation with more than one operator in it.

I know that you're just bullshitting before I read even one more word.

Yep. You are now reduced to name calling since you can't support your position. Not surprising.

Let me explain why it was applied wrong. Can you tell us what zero squared is? It is zero. A vehicle moving at a constant speed has an acceleration of zero. This is why the joke is that it isn't the fall that kills you but the sudden stop. A pedestrian hit by a vehicle isn't injured by the acceleration of the vehicle. They are damaged by their sudden acceleration. The vehicle is damaged by deceleration.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Of course you don't it right, dummy.

What does that sentence even mean?

1) Just because he didn't follow proper protocol 100%, and he made a very minor lapse in judgement by assuming that she wasn't going to try to kill him
2) does not mean that he forfeits his right to self-defence, or that she gets to try to run him over

Why did Ross stop his vehicle?
Why did he get out of his vehicle?
What was the law enforcement activity he was engaged in?
We are back to, Ross was not prevented from driving past Good. So why did he engage with her?

 

[WCM]

Yep. You are now reduced to name calling since you can't support your position. Not surprising.

You have already proven that you don't understand the basic concepts of acceleration and velocity, so I KNOW that you can't deal with a formula involving more than 1 operation.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Wrong. You obviously never took physics. Velocity squared is what the formula uses. Whether the vehicle was accelerating (eg., the velocity was increasing) or at a constant velocity (speed), that momentum coupled to the mass of the vehicle is what does the damage. Your version has the vehicle sitting still.

At the time of impact with the officer the force would be the first derivative of the formula where acceleration is in effect.

Velocity happens at impact. The two masses accelerate or decelerate at that point in time. When a mass is in motion at a constant speed no force is exerted on it.

Motion and mass, whether that motion is constant or accelerating, is what's important. No mass, no problem. No speed, no problem. Good had both going in driving that van forward.

Yes. Mass matters. But so does the speed. What matters at the point of impact is the speed of the vehicle. How long it took to accelerate to that speed is irrelevant. Speed IS the issue because it is the speed that causes the force with the impact. You even admit it yourself that with "No speed, no problem.

He did attempt to. You can see it in the videos. The problem was that he couldn't completely get out of the way.

No. You can't see it in the videos. You see him stand there and start to pull out his gun.

Here, you are presenting a red herring in the form of a strawman. It's obvious that he was videoing because the officers didn't have body cameras and that was a substitute for them. He had started out on the passenger side of the vehicle videoing Good's idiot "partner (in crime)" then he moved around the front of the vehicle keeping Good in sight as he attempted to video what the officer at her driver's side door was doing.

All of that seems perfectly reasonable to me.

He got out of his vehicle after he drove around her and started videoing. He walked completely around the vehicle. He started by walking around the front of her vehicle. He walked past Good who talked to him. Then he walked to the back of the vehicle where he encountered her partner. He took the time to do a close up of the license plate, Then he continued around the passenger side to the front of the vehicle again. If his intent was to arrest Good for interfering why did he not do that when he first encountered her? If his intent was to video the arrest, why did he walk away from the other officers and around the vehicle?

You don't seem to be clear about the complete sequence of events.

 

[WCM]

Velocity happens at impact.

Tell me that you don't have a fucking clue without actually saying that you don't have a fucking clue.

How long it took to accelerate to that speed is irrelevant.

In this context acceleration is everything, because high acceleration points to intent and danger.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You have already proven that you don't understand the basic concepts of acceleration and velocity, so I KNOW that you can't deal with a formula involving more than 1 operation.

You might want to not embarrass yourself.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Tell me that you don't have a fucking clue without actually saying that you don't have a fucking clue.

In this context acceleration is everything, because high acceleration points to intent and danger.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA

I guess I should have warned you earlier because here you are embarrassing yourself.

 

[martin]

The fact that the agent was "directly adjacent" to the car when Goode began to drive away cancels any claim based on the vehicle's "sudden acceleration" in his direction, spurring him into a burst of self defensive gunfire. He would NOT have had time in that scenario to even draw a gun nor would drawing a gun have been a normal instinctive reaction. He would have stepped or jumped out of the way, but the closeness of the car may not have allowed enough time even for that. It appears from the video that the car began gradually to move way, pulling to the right to avoid him but possibly brushing him as it did. The agent drew his gun and began shooting. He was then at the front side of the car causing the first shot to enter the windshield at its bottom left corner, the next two shots going through the driver's open side window as the car went by him.