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

Poor Richard Saunders said:
They could have avoided her. All they needed to do was drive around her like Ross did before he stopped blocking traffic.
Click to expand...
Why should they have to avoid her? She is in the commission of a crime. Why should the ICE officers ignore that? What if it were the ICE officers intent to box her in so they could arrest her?

Good was the one that initiated contact. Good was the cause of the situation. You are just deflecting at this point.

Good was deliberately trying to interfere with the ICE operation. That is clear from her actions and those of her 'partner.' Why should law enforcement ignore that, any law enforcement?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Difference. Did Babbit pose an immediate, serious, threat to any person or property? Did Byrd make any effort whatsoever to make his presence known to her? Did Byrd leave the scene immediately after shooting her?
Click to expand...

Those are all different criteria than the post I replied to.

It's a double standard. There really isn't any way around that.
 
Hume said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
Do elaborate.

R.77cbb986a2edb545f4615e92a0570f1e
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Why should they have to avoid her? She is in the commission of a crime. Why should the ICE officers ignore that?
Click to expand...
Ah, so you admit they could have avoided her. That is the opposite of what you have been trying to argue.
She was committing a traffic crime. They are not traffic cops. They are not authorized to enforce traffic laws.
T. A. Gardner said:
What if it were the ICE officers intent to box her in so they could arrest her?
Click to expand...
Now you are testifying against the officers by saying their intent was to arrest someone that had committed no federal crime.
T. A. Gardner said:
Good was the one that initiated contact. Good was the cause of the situation. You are just deflecting at this point.
Click to expand...
Not at all. I am laying out facts that the jury will be presented with. You are the one deflecting by pretending that ICE agents can enforce local traffic laws any time they want.
T. A. Gardner said:
Good was deliberately trying to interfere with the ICE operation. That is clear from her actions and those of her 'partner.' Why should law enforcement ignore that, any law enforcement?
Click to expand...
How did the Goods interfere? Ross drove around her vehicle. The other agents could have driven around her. Until the agents stopped and confronted them, the only crime was a traffic crime.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
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.
Click to expand...
That argument is predictably dumb. Of course there can be a self defense claim in a civil case. The argument is that in the Estate's wrongful death suit the government can claim the agent shot at the car and at the driver to protect himself when the car began to lurch toward him. Whether this defense makes sense is a different question but a jury could consider it. You also misunderstand qualified immunity. It protects the agent from personal liability. It does not protect the government.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Why should they have to avoid her? She is in the commission of a crime. Why should the ICE officers ignore that? What if it were the ICE officers intent to box her in so they could arrest her?

Good was the one that initiated contact. Good was the cause of the situation. You are just deflecting at this point.

Good was deliberately trying to interfere with the ICE operation. That is clear from her actions and those of her 'partner.' Why should law enforcement ignore that, any law enforcement?
Click to expand...
She was leaving. They should have left her alone. But ICE does not work that way. She was exercising the rights we used to have,
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Ah, so you admit they could have avoided her. That is the opposite of what you have been trying to argue.
She was committing a traffic crime. They are not traffic cops. They are not authorized to enforce traffic laws.
Click to expand...

They are when they have to be.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Now you are testifying against the officers by saying their intent was to arrest someone that had committed no federal crime.
Click to expand...

She interfered with their law enforcement duties. That is why she was there.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Not at all. I am laying out facts that the jury will be presented with. You are the one deflecting by pretending that ICE agents can enforce local traffic laws any time they want.
Click to expand...

You are now the one trying to defend Good's actions. That's your problem. Good was the cause of the whole incident.
Poor Richard Saunders said:
How did the Good's interfere? Ross drove around her vehicle. The other agents could have driven around her. Until the agents stopped and confronted them, the only crime was a traffic crime.
Click to expand...
Oh, so someone, anyone, can just park in the middle of the street and disrupt traffic when they want to hum? Good interfered with traffic by her actions. Her partner got out in the middle of the street and started taunting the ICE officers. That some agents went around her doesn't excuse what she was doing or somehow make it legal.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They are when they have to be.


She interfered with their law enforcement duties. That is why she was there.


You are now the one trying to defend Good's actions. That's your problem. Good was the cause of the whole incident.

Oh, so someone, anyone, can just park in the middle of the street and disrupt traffic when they want to hum? Good interfered with traffic by her actions. Her partner got out in the middle of the street and started taunting the ICE officers. That some agents went around her doesn't excuse what she was doing or somehow make it legal.
Click to expand...
None of which is relevant unless you're claiming it helps justify shooting her to death in which case it's relevant to an idiotic defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top