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

IBDaMann said:
Nope. The right breast was a different round. Focus on Ross being run over.
Click to expand...
The woman may have turned to the left facing the driver side window and was shot in her chest on the right.

The police have no liability, the dumb woman resisted and tried to harm them.

If this woman has been a Trump supporter, these loons would have cared less.

Case closed.
 
Walt said:
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.
Click to expand...
They gave her a lawful command. Full stop.

They had already given ger several other lawful commands that she disobeyed, and "Get out of the car" was another one.

What the ICE agent's bosses or a judge may or may not have determined after the fact is just the answer to a trivia question... The fact is that she was given a lawful command, and therefor was supposed to have gotten out of her vehicle at that point.
 
IBDaMann said:
When the driver is sitting turned facing in the direction of an attempted turn.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO.
She was turning right. So if she was turned right it would make it impossible for someone on her left to shoot her right side. I thought you were more intelligent than this but it seems you don't know right from left.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
It seems it's you that is the dummy. Standing next to the front fender is not in front of the vehicle. Standing next to the front wheel is not in front of the vehicle.
But the fact that you simply ignore simple science to keep to your delusions says a lot about you.
Click to expand...
The officer was in the car's path until it struck him, at which point he ended up beside the front fender.

But here's the point, DUMMY... He didn't:
  1. decide he needed his gun
  2. reach for his gun
  3. pull it out
  4. aim it
  5. and fire it...
all in the space of time when the car had hit him and he was still beside the front fender, right?

For sure, items 1-4 occurred during the time frame when the car had yet to hit him. Whether he fired his gun the first time while he was being struck by the car or within a few hundredths of a second afterwards is unknown to me, but he clearly pulled his gun in an avt of self-defence, and it was clearly warranted. People shouldn't ram LEOs with their cars.
 
One wonders why these far left loons always, and I mean always, embrace those who try to harm ICE agents or other law enforcement agents.

Could it be that they do not want illegals to be deported or do they not want those who assault and ignore LE orders to cease resisting, to be harmed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: WCM
Here’s something that you can take to the bank:
Resist arrest, disobey lawful police orders, and try to harm LE and your results will not be good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WCM
Poor Richard Saunders said:
ROFLMAO.
Click to expand...
Don't ask questions whose answers you don't want to hear. I wasn't there, so asking me why she was facing a certain way at a certain moment is stupid on your part.

Were you there? No? Then you have to go with what the people who were there say. The ICE officers who were there gave testimony that is completely corroborated by all the video evidence.

Next time, be one of the people who were there.

Poor Richard Saunders said:
She was turning right.
Click to expand...
ROFLMAO. You weren't there. You don't know what she was doing. You are just another leftist pretending to be omniscient.

Your omniscience declaration is summarily rejected. I'll go with the testimony of the people who were there.
 
IBDaMann said:
Don't ask questions whose answers you don't want to hear. I wasn't there, so asking me why she was facing a certain way at a certain moment is stupid on your part.
Click to expand...
You are the one stupid enough to make the claim. I am only pointing out not only was your claim stupid it is shown to be wrong based on video evidence. Now tell us how she it is possible for any of the bullets to hit her in the right breast area and traverse or body if the shot was fired from in front of the vehicle. I can't wait to hear your "scientific" explanation.
IBDaMann said:
Were you there? No? Then you have to go with what the people who were there say. The ICE officers who were there gave testimony that is completely corroborated by all the video evidence.
Click to expand...
There is video. It clearly shows her turning her car to the right just before she is shot.
IBDaMann said:
Next time, be one of the people who were there.
Click to expand...
Gosh. And yet you were making wild ass speculations when you were no where near there.
IBDaMann said:
ROFLMAO. You weren't there. You don't know what she was doing. You are just another leftist pretending to be omniscient.
Click to expand...
Video exist. I am capable of watching video. Are you capable of watching video to see the evidence or are you only capable of making yourself look silly? (You are doing a very good job with that.)
IBDaMann said:
Your omniscience declaration is summarily rejected. I'll go with the testimony of the people who were there.
Click to expand...
Good. Then you will accept that she was ordered to move her vehicle prior to her moving her vehicle since that is the testimony of people that were there.
 
Last edited:
WCM said:
The officer was in the car's path until it struck him, at which point he ended up beside the front fender.

But here's the point, DUMMY... He didn't:
  1. decide he needed his gun
  2. reach for his gun
  3. pull it out
  4. aim it
  5. and fire it...
all in the space of time when the car had hit him and he was still beside the front fender, right?

For sure, items 1-4 occurred during the time frame when the car had yet to hit him. Whether he fired his gun the first time while he was being struck by the car or within a few hundredths of a second afterwards is unknown to me, but he clearly pulled his gun in an avt of self-defence, and it was clearly warranted. People shouldn't ram LEOs with their cars.
Click to expand...
Congratulations. You just destroyed your entire argument that he was in front of the car when he fired. Not being in front of the car proves he was not in danger of being run over at the time he fired. I rest my case because you have just agreed with the facts I presented.
 
martin said:
Then you should be able to critique one and show us what you mean.
Click to expand...
there can be no self defense claim unless there is a criminal trial. For there to be a criminal trial, a judge would have to find that the officer/agent in question either set himself up on purpose in that position OR that no reasonable officer would consider themselves in danger during that rapidly evolving situation. Whatever civil lawsuit claims that the family is pursuing is going to be dismissed because of qualified immunity. This is a waste of time and clearly shows that most of you know little to nothing about how the law and the injustice system works.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
My bet is they try to settle so they don't have to go through discovery which would likely reveal the coverup and how they hid evidence from state investigators.
Click to expand...
If I were the fed defending this, I'd put everything I could out on front street, the more graphic and detailed, the better. Let Good's family sit through all the gory details. Go frame by frame through the video. Show how she created the entire situation and lay out her criminal actions. Make the plaintiffs explain why their daughter was even there and why she was disobeying law enforcement and acting criminally.

Let them explain all that to the jury. Portray it as Good being an asshole Leftist doing illegal protest shit while the ICE agents were just trying to do their job while she taunted and hassled them. It's a civil case, so it should be easy to present all that and more showing just how Good created the situation then panicked and ended up shot because of it.
 
QP! said:
you could have just said you did not know the history in the US southern rural States of resisting police commands
Click to expand...
A State does not resist police commands. A State commissions a police force. They are typically called the State Police, State Trooper, or similar. You can typically find them patrolling highways and freeways.
QP! said:
and sticking rigidly to the Constitution with regards to what you have to tell them
Click to expand...
The Constitution does not describe what you have to tell them. The Constitution doesn't apply to the population, Kewpie.
DON'T TRY TO HIDE BEHIND THE CONSTITUTION THAT YOU DESPISE!
QP! said:
and do and that i just educated you as you thought it was a 'leftist' thing.
Click to expand...
Disobeying police is a leftist thing.

It is DEMOCRATS rioting.
It is DEMOCRATS fighting cops.
It is DEMOCRATS figuring they are 'sovereign citizens'.
It is DEMOCRATS looting.
It is DEMOCRATS using cars to block federal law enforcement officers.
It is DEMOCRATS trespassing on federal property to block or even try to damage law enforcement officers.
It is DEMOCRATS harboring illegal aliens.
It is DEMOCRATS supporting organized crime.
It is DEMOCRATS calling for civil war against citizens of the United States, and law enforcement officers with them.
It is DEMOCRATS that deny and discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top