WCM
Verified User
This all happened in a very condensed time frame, with the car driving towards him.
He was being struck by the vehicle as he lined up that shot.
Renee Good's family sues Trump administration over fatal Minneapolis shooting
- Thread starter Hume
- Start date
He was being struck by the vehicle as he lined up that shot.
WCM
Verified User
It might have been a lapse in judgment to gather evidence from that spot, but he wasn't expecting to be rammed, and that didn't give Good the right to ram him.
WCM
Verified User
Well, her car hit him, so there's that...
QP!
Verified User
Yup.
Training requires approaching from the rear quarter panel area and giving instructions while maintaining that position.
@T. A. Gardner keeps repeating 'but all she had to do was comply', which is NEVER justification for shooting someone.
And as it appears from video impossible to establish any one was at any risk based on the vehicles direction of super slow travel i cannot see a jury accepting a 'fear' based reason for the shooting.
When the cop loses Terry will switch to biased court and jury complaints.
WCM
Verified User
I can't speak to some angles that fail to show that the agent was truck by the car, but there are at least two different videos that clearly show that he was struck by the car.
There are 8 trillion videos that don't show Good's car hitting the agent. Some show funny cats, some show figure skaters, some show gay porn, soccer games, birthday parties, etc. But two videos show Good's car hitting agent.
The car HIT the agent.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
QP!
Verified User
You are conflating this case with another one likely because Trump admin did and magat media continues to.
It was the other shooting that had the claim of dragging but feel free to show me anything I missed.
And again none of that justifies killing her. No jury watching the video is going to see any one at imminent risk of death there
And when you lose your bet you will cry and cry about biased juries.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
No, I'm not. One officer had his hand on her driver's side door handle. When she started to drive forward, he was pulled with the vehicle before letting go. The officer in front of the vehicle tried to dodge to the side, was hit, then drew his firearm and fired three rounds.
The fact all of that happened in under four seconds says the officers had no time to think this through with some sort of reflective thought but instead reacted as trained. You have a suspect who is engaged in resisting arrest and felony flight and has just drug one officer and hit another in her attempt to escape.
Imminent risk of death is NOT the standard for deadly force. Serious bodily harm or serious damage to property is.
WCM
Verified User
They will see him standing with his phone in his hand when he sees/hears the car start accelerating towards him, at which point he pulls out his gun, is hit by the car while he is in the process of aiming and firing.
Can you spot the "imminent risk" in that sentence?
Hint: "he sees/hears the car start accelerating towards him"
QP!
Verified User
Ya you are confused or lying but feel free to time stamp video that shows otherwise.
--------------
Where the Claim Fails to Match Verified Reports and Video
• Claim: "One officer had his hand on the door handle... was pulled with the vehicle before letting go."
• The Fact: No video or official report describes an officer grabbing the handle and being pulled. In the video, as Renée Good's car begins to roll, another agent reaches through the open window to order her out, but he is not dragged or pulled along. The specific concept of an agent being "dragged 100 meters" by a car door handle belongs to a completely different case from June 2025 involving the same ICE agent (Jonathan Ross) and a different suspect.
"They" did not. One told her to get out of the car, but multiple others told her to drive away. "They" is a plural, so they told her to drive away.
Killing of Renée Good - Wikipedia
According to Secretary Noem, they were traveling to their headquarters, and not about to attack the school. The reason she is ashamed of the plan to attack the school is there were no warrants for specific people. ICE just knew that there were parents dropping off children at a school with a large English as a second language program. Nothing more specific than that.
WCM
Verified User
As with the military, you always obey the last legal command.
To detain her law enforcement needed "reasonable articulable suspicion", so it very much matters what their reasons for detaining her was. They also needed to speak with a unified command. When they were ordering her to leave, and she left, she was obeying commands.
Actually, they need a reasonable articulable suspicion to detain someone. They cannot just detain anyone for any amount of time.
Almost all the lawyers disagree with you.
I am sure that in your world, trump is unconditionally loved. In the real world, most Americans are not seeing any of the miracles that trump promised.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
They had reason. She was interfering with their operations. Second, she clearly heard the officer tell her to exit her vehicle and even replied to him "No!" That means she knew what he was telling her to do and was refusing to comply. That is resisting. He got to her vehicle and attempted to open the door, further evidence she needed to exit the vehicle as instructed. She again, refused. At that point, she attempted to flee after being detained. That is felony flight.
It doesn't matter one whit if previous to that some, all, one, or more officers told her to leave. That was done and gone. She was clearly detained and under instructions to exit the vehicle which she refused to do. That means she was resisting arrest.
They don't initially have to tell a suspect squat about why they are detained. It is sufficient that the officer has told them, they are. The exact reason / charges can be worked out once the suspect is detained. Good refused and resisted.