The case will "be thrown out of court" only if the allegation(s) fail to state a legal cause of action - in this case whether an ICE officer may lawfully shoot and kill a citizen without reasonable cause. Reasonable cause will be a key issue if the case goes to trial, probably the key issue.
Renee Good's family sues Trump administration over fatal Minneapolis shooting
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
WCM
Verified User
They told her to get out of the car. It was a lawful order at that time because, by her wife's own admission, they were honking their horn to alert a person, who was the subject of a warrant, that the agents were there to apprehend.
That's neither here nor there. The fact is that she was given a legal order by a federal agent, and it was her duty to comply. It's up to a judge to determine the legality of that order at a later date. Disobeying was not a legal option for her at that moment.
Valentino
The Man - The Myth
Has really nothing to do with being an Ice Officer. It has to do with self defense and any law officer.
A claim of self defense is what it’s termed - a defense. It would be made and litigated at trial not argued as a reason for “throwing the case out of court”, i. e, dismissing the indictment.
WCM
Verified User
It was in self-defence, so it was 100% legal.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
She was 'detained.' When the officer approached her and ordered her to exit the vehicle, she was detained. That was a lawful order by a law enforcement officer. She clearly on the videos with sound tells the officer "No!" That means she is now technically resisting arrest.
The officer went to open her driver door and likely remove her from the vehicle by force. We can see that.
So, she was legally detained. A potential misdemeanor in progress with a possible arrest to follow.
She resisted arrest by refusing to comply with the officer's order. Now she is committing a misdemeanor or potentially low-level felony.
She then tried to flee the scene. She is now committing a felony.
Doesn't matter what the charge(s) would have been. It is sufficient that a law enforcement officer had told her to exit the vehicle. That is sufficient to show she was "detained" for questioning by the officer. An arrest may or may not have followed that.
The officer doesn't need a reason to detain someone. They can do that. Once detained, the officer can determine if an arrest is warranted. Resisting being detained is the same as resisting arrest. When she told the officer "No!" to his command for her to exit the vehicle, she was resisting arrest.
WCM
Verified User
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
It doesn't require "self-defense." It requires a reasonable conclusion on the part of the officer that bodily or serious property harm would result from the criminal's action.
In this case, the officer that fired was hit by the vehicle. Another officer was drug initially because he was holding onto the door handle. In that split second, the officers involved had to make a decision about their next action. The officer that got hit decided that deadly force was called for and used it effectively. He fired three rounds, which would be in line with his training. His intention would be to "stop the action." That is, stop the crime in progress and the criminal committing it.
He would NOT be trying to "disable" the criminal, disarm them, or otherwise do some Hollywood stupidity like wound or shoot their hand or something. He'd aim center mass (upper chest) and fire multiple rounds. That ensures the best chances of hitting the target and stopping the action.
He needs a reason to shoot someone. That she was lawfully “detained”, if she was, by itself won’t suffice.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
He had reason. From his point of view, he had been hit by the vehicle, and another officer was drug holding onto the door handle. He had less than a second to decide a course of action. Good was committing felony flight while resisting arrest. Good enough for her to end up shot for it.
And, just remember, Good could have avoided this happening entirely had she followed the officer's instructions and exited the vehicle as he ordered her to. This situation was 100% caused by Good's actions.
Last edited:
WCM
Verified User
At no point did anyone ever suggest that she was being shot for fleeing - that's just YOUR strawman argument.
The ICE agent shot her in self-defence when she was accelerating her car towards him. He was getting his gun out and aiming it before her car struck him. His first shot went through the windshield.
Stop trying to twist the basic facts of the matter to make it look like an illegal shooting.
I will agree with one thing: if all of the fictitious events of your false narrative were correct, then it would have been an illegal shooting.
Once more, a claim to be made in a court and decided in court. A jury or a judge would decide if the agent's "conclusion" was reasonable. And then if what he did based on that "conclusion" was reasonable. He has a hard case to make, in my opinion.
WCM
Verified User
There was a car accelerating towards him when he pulled out his gun and started shooting.
Then the car struck him.
His first shot went through the windshield.
Martin: Are you stripped of the right to self-defence at your job? If someone goes to kill you are you just supposed to hope they fail, without using any force at all to prevent your impending death? What is your job? Are you a crash-test dummy?
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I think he has a slam dunk case for his actions being justified. All Good had to do was obey the officers instead of turning a simple detention into felony flight, resisting arrest, and using her vehicle--even if unintentionally--as a weapon hitting one officer and dragging another. Good is 100% at fault here. Her actions, and hers alone, led to her being shot.
The officer didn't decide out-of-the-blue to just shoot her 'because' or something. Good at every step escalated the situation into one where deadly force ended up being used.
WCM
Verified User
You are lying now, as usual.
His first shot went through her windshield. Because he pulled his gun out in self-defence.
He didn't "quickly pull out his gun after she hit him with her car, and started shooting as a form of revenge", and yet manage to get his first shot through her windshield.
Get it, stupid cultist?
FYI the jury isn't allowed to consider your fictitious details. They have to consider... the facts. And as always, the facts
are
not
on
your
side.
.
.
Another small problem with your claim. The jury does consider facts. The bullet fired through the windshield wasn't fired from in front of the vehicle. It was also fired from the side of the vehicle. This is simple physics. Bullets travel in straight lines. The location of the hole in the glass and the fact that the bullet struck Good in the right breast shows that Ross wasn't in front of the vehicle when he fired.
