"Like everyone else, I looked at the shooting of Renee Nicole Good. From several angles. And frame by frame. I watched the reverse lights go out. The weapon leave its holster.
I looked at the before footage. The aftermath. I listened carefully to the audio. I heard the legal scholars commentary. The politicians. Etc.
But most of all, I watched it as a pair of amped up Federal Agents with a car and driver defying my orders in a tense situation. And then I watched it as a freaked out American female in fight-or-flight model with a terrifying man trying to force open my driver side door who may have barely noticed the other man in front of my car about to end my life.
My thoughts.
This was always going to happen. A bunch of political people we don’t know playing out a drama of Sanctuary Cities, voting strategies, refugee designations, border enforcement, immigration scams, etc.
Sooner or later, given enough time, a loving widower and single dad will also pick up a gun and find a 2A solution to his grief over the Surgeon who “transitioned” his only brainwashed child while he was working two jobs in a murder suicide.
Someone wearing a Candace t-shirt calling for America-First will shoot up a Pro-Israel rally in Florida chanting about “Noticing”, Nick Fuentes and wanting their country back. Or a person will spray-paint “Never Again” on a Cybertruck and drive it into a Michigan crowd screaming “From The River To The Sea!”
Etc.
We are being set, like wind up toys, to tear each other apart and ourselves apart. my own head has been filled with so many slogans and so much hate for you by so many different people no matter who you are.
We are all in this low grade revolution.
And it will be reset today by algorithms you didn’t program, filled by speeches you didn’t write, amplified by accounts you don’t know are bot farms, directed by political strategists whose names you do not know, undoing action you would never have taken in ways you would never agree to directed by famous people you don’t know personally."

-Eric Weinstein

I don’t need to tune in to the Stranger for a rehash of terrible news. You could add a lot of value by making this a roundup of lesser known successes or failures in arts or people being weirdos, literally anything than the drumbeat of domestic and international war. I’ve already been overfed reality.

Use the past tense, "Border Patrol shot two people in Portland."

@2: I disagree as we're fascinated by Slog spins national and world news and it gives commenters opportunities to comment on the days news without bringing up topics out of the blue.

https://youtu.be/tetndXjHG1U?si=8z_MkqPJP6-baqis

@4, “fascinated?” It’s pretty predictable. Was hoping an independent media source would create its own content and some better value than more red meat for comment forum trolls. It’s good to have dreams.

@6: "Was hoping an independent media source would create its own content and some better value"

This "independent media source" recently got caught reposting content from ChatGPT. 😄

I'm just here for the A. Birch Steen commentaries.

A new video of the incident appears to be real, and we see that Renee Good and her wife taunting ICE officers, but doesn't show the shooting itself.

https://x.com/i/status/2009682363077509453

@9. If you express your freedom of speech, that gives cowards license to shoot those whose speech they don't agree with?

The Heneppin County Attorney has correctly asked public videographers and witnesses to come forward to come forward in the Minneapolis homicide of the 37 year old woman.

The Heneppin County Attorney is constitutionally and legally correct to do so.

Given that the case hinges on the shooter's reasonableness in their perception of the threat given the limitations of human physiology and reaction times, she has a tough case to make under Minnesota Law.

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation/fatal-shooting-by-ice-agent-in-minneapolis-raises-questions-about-officers-firing-at-moving-vehicles/

Minnesota Law 609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.

"The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death ..."

Was it reasonable, in the milliseconds available, with feet slipping on the ice to "reasonably believe" he was being "expose[d]" to "great bodily harm or death"? Yes. It will be exceedingly difficult for the Hennepin County Attorney to prove otherwise, beyond a reasonable doubt, to 12 individual people. It is the Hennepin County Attorney's obligation to prove such a perception by the shooter to be unreasonable, not the shooter's obligation to prove reasonableness.

The Feds didn't choose that requirement for making a manslaughter or murder case. The citizens of Minnesota did, via their choices for Legislature, just like Washington voters have chosen a similar standard for this state.

If we wind up not liking the outcome of this case, its on voters for the creating the standard for Justifiable Homicide in state law.

@10: Did I say that. No I didn't. Just mere details dear. Good Lord!

I wonder if there are enlightened centrists in Iran wringing their hands about the protests and insisting everyone only protest the right way lest the Ayatollahs use them as an excuse to violate citizens' rights, or if that only happens here.

“This is your city. Everyone should be safe”
Mayor K Wilson.
Never mind Seattle, the Northern Hemisphere isn’t safe.

@11 "Was it reasonable, in the milliseconds available, with feet slipping on the ice to "reasonably believe" he was being "expose[d]" to "great bodily harm or death"? Yes."

Fortunately you are a transparently crazy person who would be quickly stricken from any jury pool. The overwhelming majority of normal people have a very different take.

@2:

And yet, here you are, along with the rest of us.

@12:

Did @10 say you said that? No, they didn't. They just extended your "mere details" to their logical conclusion. Good Grief!

@16: In addition, Renee Good was a nose ring wearer -- but didn't deserve to die.

@17. Charming. Hilarious. Classy and in good taste. Refined. Polite. Demure.

@16: Please note that CDizzle is male, has a penis, and is not non-binary. Use He him, not they. Thanks.

@15, Then courts and juries that have set that precedent are crazy. Legislatures that have set that standard are crazy. The voters that elect those legislators and state judges are crazy.

Who the fuck are you to inform others of my pronouns? I am just a spirt inhabiting a bag of flesh temporarily, my vessel. Who I am is what I do with it, not what it looks like or what others say I must do and be because of what my vessel looks like. Call me they if you want, in fact it is proper for addressing someone whose gender is unknown.

"The overwhelming majority of normal people" understand that if you accelerate your car with someone standing in front of it on ice, they are in intense danger of being under your tires, which is fundamentally the reason she was shot. Anyone who did not acknowledge a vehicle can present a deadly threat is who actually would be stricken from the jury pool.

Gender theory is beyond those who have never dissociated, or for those cowards who are so attached to their ego and the material world they lose sight of their place in nature as a whole. The circle of life. How sad to live such a myopic existence.

@9, Taunting is protected by the 1A. So the taunting is irrelevant to this case. @10 is correct that taunting doesn't give legal justification to use deadly force (or any force).

Accelerating and striking someone with a vehicle is not protected by the 1A and reasonably would lead the person seeing the vehicle accelerating toward them to reasonably conclude they were at imminent risk of great bodily harm.

@22. Hey an angry person drove past me in the parking lot when I took their spot, even though they had their flashers on. Since they drove past me quickly when I got out and were cursing me out and visibly upset, I had my buddy who wasn't even in the same lane use his training to shoot that driver in the fact three times in order to protect myself. A jury will understand I had no other options.

Nekra you have revealed yourself to have zero credibility, not that you had any in the first place. For your own sake you should stop posting and seek professional help. Meanwhile, may I offer you this boot for lunch.

Gender Theory is BS and very destructive to society - especially children.

@26. Gender theory isn't for kids, but for those who seek to understand existence.

One day all of us will reach the end of our lives, some sooner than others. At some point a mature mind and soul recognizes that their own existence is greater than any one individual. Everyone's actions shape the future, and we inherit that witness and legacy when born to act as we are. We carry on the will of the past. Though our biology compels us to reproduce, eat, and seek comfort and liesure, that does not define our existence. There is a greater pursuit, and detachment from the ego is the first step down that path. A child and a young adult needs to be selfish, to thrive in their own world and to grow. But what makes a true adult is to pull away the curtain to see that one has a greater responsibility to humanity as a whole. Usually having children or caring for them makes this clearer, when one stops living for themself alone.

@25, You are correct that taunting is not a justification for the use of force, let alone the use of deadly force.

The video supplied @9, clearly is the best evidence we have of what the shooter perceived.

It shows a vehicle accelerating towards the shooter. The video, presumably body worn, is shot from below eye level. It does not show the angle of the tires at, towards or, or away from the shooter. It shows the vehicle coming at the shooter. The audio and the spinning of the camera indicates the vehicle striking the officer. We also hear the sounds of gunshots.

That video will make it nearly impossible for the Heneppin County Attorney (DA) to show that the officer's perception of threat of great bodily harm at the hands of the driver was unreasonable, as required by Minnesota Law.

"which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death ..." Minnesota Law.

The video also shows the officer moving in front of the vehicle while it moves backward (towards other people) and when its stopped (which is legal for anyone, officer or not, to do), as well as the driver clearly looking at the officer as the driver moves the vehicle forward.

Whether the officers had "reasonable suspicion" or not to detain either the driver or passenger is a separate civil law question, not material to the criminality or non-criminality of the officer's use of deadly force. He, or anyone else, has legal right to move about on the public street, and even if committing a pedestrian violation, is not subject to use of force by the vehicle driver. Tragically, due to her own choice in this tragedy, the driver won't be around to litigate the civil matter. Only their estate, spouse, and children will.

Survive is a precondition to filing a lawsuit alleging violation of 4A and other civil rights.

@27: You are so wrong buster. No wonder this world is going to hell because you lefties are oblivious to the destruction confusing kids with the objective of transing effeminate gay boys and tomboys who have no idea of the loss of the genitals, fertility, and a lifetime of medical problems mostly urinary and continuous infections.

Read it and weep - right here in Seattle.

https://www.seattleschools.org/departments/health-education/lgbtq/k-5-gender-lessons/

@25 A very poor analogy. A more accurate one would be if you were standing directly in front of a stopped vehicle when they stomp the accelerator while you were in front of it, also possibly striking you in the hip with the headlight. Another factor might be that you were in a job where you frequently encounter people who want to kill you, and are trained to shoot people who drive their car at you. With this considerably more apt and relevant analogy compared to yours, we can see it is in fact you who lacks credibility.

@28: "Though our biology compels us to reproduce, eat, and seek comfort and liesure [sic], that does not define our existence."

Actually it does. The evangelization of disassociation introduces unnecessary anxiety.

@31. I choose my job. I also have PTSD. A trauma response is no justification for deadly force. My mental health is my responsibility. Only a coward hides their choices behind a diagnosis. He should never have been there in the first place if he can't control his fear.

Gosh it's so revealing to step into the Stranger comments section. You get to see how the city's "moderates" think in real-time. One gets the impression that the "moderates" only voted against Trump because he didn't run as a Democrat. Just in thread alone I've learned there is something inherently legitimate in sending in masked squads to terrorize our cities, and execute their citizens for calling a masked gunman, such as the fascistic murderer Jonathan Ross, bad names. Gee, and now we have the murder in Minneapolis, plus two shot in Portland? Why do those two cities ring a bell? Don't know, but I've learned from our "moderates" all this mayhem carnage is inherently rational, nothing to see here but state violence which is legitimate no matter what, so move along.

@30. Uhh, I am telling you that in my opinion gender theory is not for kids in the terms and scope I am discussing. Since you claim to be a christian in name only, you might know something about the concept of the immortal soul. Or the concept of humanoid angels who lack genitals. I am not talking about advocating transgender policies per se. But about detaching actions, deeds, goals, whatever from gender roles set by society insofar as they do not harm others. What constitutes harm is moot.

Re @27: I agree with that statement, just later pointing out that it's being taught to kids.

@35: Good - we agree it shouldn't be taught to kids. Adults can philosophize on adult matters.

It's also ironic and telling that those who are so vocal and concerned with transgender folks and gender theory hurting kids largely project their own predatory tencencies to deflect from criticism.

@34 -- that'd be a big fucking bingo.

going to
Extroradinary Lengths
to justify our support for the
Genocide in Israel -- and the utter
determination to convince Everyone
that, no, it CANNOT BE GENOCIDE UNTIL
THE PERPETRAITORS of said Genocide, Say it IS!

reveals the hollowness of
their Humanity and willingness
to Further our Corporate Masters'

Control over our Economy
our Thoughts & Our
fucking LIVES.

Call them tF OUT

perhaps it'll slow
our Descent In-
To the Abyss.

oh,
and
FUCK ICE.

@9 That appears to be the shooter's video. In the earlier videos he can be seen walking around holding up a phone in a recording position, and the post you linked to apparently has that video. Incredible that some people seem to think it exonerates him. It shows he's more interested in making a video than doing his job. It shows him leaving safe positions beside her car for a dangerous one out front. It shows Good steering away from him before he fires his gun. You can hear him call Good a "bitch" after he shoots her. Its hard to see how it would help his case by releasing that, unless he thinks he's justified in shooting her because they insulted him. It looks like a case study in how not to handle an interaction like the one he had. It may not prove he's a criminal, but it certainly proves he's bad at his job.

@37. Does gender theory to you mean telling a kid that a "man in a dress" is okay to express himself that way? Or will you go into the nuanced of drag versus transgender? Theory in general is abstract. But you can make any concept appropriate for kids in terms thay can understand. It doesn't mean they will decide to change who they are! Kids have an indredibly strong sense of self! They will be who they are no matter how hard you try to make them into who you want them to be.

@33 The trauma response is not the "justification" for deadly force. The justification is the objective danger presented to the officer when the accelerator is pressed hard enough with him in front of the car that the wheel does a quick quarter turn in place against the ice before moving forward. From his perspective, just listening to the motor rev, she has floored the gas pedal with him right in front of the driver's side bumper. He moves, shoots, and is seemingly clipped by the driver's side bumper at virtually the same time. This is the impartial reason the shooting occurred.

@39

not to Worry!
cadet bonespurs'll
pardon his ass, give him one
of his Special Peace Prizes and Buy*
him a Home on Martha's fucking Vineyard.

making the Killer
a shining example
for bonespurs' brown-
shirts to fucking Emulate

Glory be to GOD!
aka thedjt.

*that'd
be WE,
the Peeps
buying this Ugly
excuse for a person
a Mansion on the beach.

@35, Since you invoke "christian" and gender theory let's look at what Christ is quoted as saying:

"He answered, 'Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female,' and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.' 7 They said to him, 'Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?'”

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). (Mt 19:4–7). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles.

Christ only ever identifies two genders, and defines marriage as between two humans of opposite gender.

One can disagree whether Matthew accurately quoted Christ. One can disagree with what Christ is quoted as having said, but you can't dispute, based on the only record that we have of Christ's words, Christ's stated position on gender and how they should be paired in marriage. Christ never names genders other than male and female or marriage between people of the same gender.

Agree or disagree with that the record we have is accurate. Agree or disagree with Christ's position. That is your right. What is not correct is to ascribe to Christ a different position to Christ than what the record we have supports.

@32. I am not trying to evangelize dissociation; it is as terrifying as it is freeing. But it brings insight and makes you value your ego even more after the fact because you see it and make decisions in a more profound context. It can bring your life into focus and give it meaning with the time you have.

The sacrament of marriage is based on the interpretation that man and woman are of the same flesh (Adam's rib) in God's image, and that in unity they become one with God outside their individual genders but as a perfect spiritual whole. It is less about the binary of man and woman than of the superseding of gender by becoming spiritually diffuse.

@40: No need to go through all the permutations of scenarios. Kids are not mini-adults.

@41. The excuse people are making for the shooter is that he was towed in a car in the past and had to get stitches as a result. So he pulled a gun because he was afraid. Everyone seems to make it sound like he was afraid and couldn't be helped to do anything but shoot because his life was in danger. The arc of the car was nowhere near him, it was the other officer who approached the window. So the fact he calls he a bitch and reacts in anger or deficance instead? Anyone acting that way in real life without a fake uniform would quickly find themselves without a head of their own. That's why the second amendment exists in the first place, to protect against tyranny and foreign occupation. I will take our local police forces over these ICE pigs any day of the week, and it might come to that. Maybe the answer to the magafication of our police is for those of diverse viewpoints to join up to protect their own from these thugs.

40, the thing people like raindrop fear isn’t so much that you’re going to trick kids into being trans (i am being generous and assuming he’s smarter than that) but that kids will learn at an early age there’s nothing wrong with it. You won’t make a cisgender kid trans but you will give trans kids permission to be themselves, and teaching the rest to be more accepting.

@46. Well scenarios arise because kids are curious and seek to understand their world. You can raise your child to accept others as they are or to demand they conform to the expectations of society. In some places that means you grow up with women who cover their hair, or men who never cut it. You don't call it theory, but your explanation still falls under its scope. Gender theory is an entire body of academic study of the self, or ego. It is not the reductive pet issues of the "wrong biological sex" in sports etc.

@49: Just teach good manners, that's all.

@50

when
'decorum'
trumpfs one's Hu-
manity Emily fucking
Post need no longer apply.

well,
hello,
dewdrop.

@39,

"It shows he's more interested in making a video than doing his job. It shows him leaving safe positions beside her car for a dangerous one out front. It shows Good steering away from him before he fires his gun."

All of which is fodder for a civil suit. For an analysis of criminal justification/non justification its irrelevant and inadmissible.

It is not criminal to be imprudent. It's not criminal to violate policy or training, but it might get you disciplined by your employer or sued.

He does not step in front of the vehicle AFTER it is moving forward. It's legally permissible for him, or anyone, to do what you describe. Those actions do not void a claim of self-defense. The desribed actions don't make moving the vehicle forward in his direction a lawful use of force by the driver. The video and audio indicate the vehicle made contact with the shooter, making debate about which direction it was turning moot. He was objectively correct about the vehicle being driven in a manner that was a threat of great personal injury.

As far as him calling her a bitch, after the fact is not evidence of having or not having the reasonable basis to conclude imminent threat of great personal injury.

Was the shooter in a place he was legally allowed to be, whether it was prudent or not? Once in that position was it reasonable to believe the driver's actions threatened great personal injury. Those are the key questions in a criminal analysis.

The issues you raise, and whether the stop violated the 4th Amendment are highly relevant to a civil suit. She is not alive to sue, using the issues you raise to make her case, because of a decision to move a 4,000 pound vehicle when a human was close enough to be struck.

For those who give a damn about kids, there is a six year old who will cry himself to sleep tonight now that he has to deal with the death of not only his father but now his mother who had just dropped him off at school for the last time. It will hurt him for life. And to add insult to injury the cowards in the government who fear the truth above all else are insulting her character and justifying the murder as self defense against a domestic terrorist!! And the family can't even reveal themselves for their own safety. Have you seen how ICE treats children? If you tolerate this, then your children will be next. ICE under DHS is the only domestic terrorism we are facing. And they will answer to all of us united against this evil.

@48
"The first time she ran the 5,000 meters on the boys cross-country team, she came in 417th place. She had fun, though. She felt as fast as a fire engine when she jogged through the woods, and later, after she joined the track team, her male teammates didn’t say anything when she ran in a skirt. She almost felt like she belonged, but she knew she wasn’t one of them."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/for-young-transgender-runner-racing-wasn-t-the-hardest-thing/ar-AA1Ta4Fa

The team appears more accepting of her than she does of herself. It doesn't matter how accepting society if someone can't accept themselves.

Tim Miller does a great job.
BREAKING: New Footage in Minneapolis Killing
The Bulwark
https://youtu.be/oc9gwMDxYAQ

@13: "I wonder if there are enlightened centrists in Iran wringing their hands about the protests and insisting everyone only protest the right way lest the Ayatollahs use them as an excuse to violate citizens' rights"

The "enlightened centrists" in Iran are the ones in the streets, calling for Israel and America to bomb the government out of existence. The self-identified "revolutionaries" in Iran are members of governmental militias whose job is to shoot the enlightened centrists if it looks like they might win. It's basically like if Mamdani had a lifetime term and no checks and balances. 😂😂😂

@47 is right - getting dragged is an excuse people are broadly making for Jonathan Ross. It's also correct that it's largely immaterial to the current shooting.

What it is though is character revealing. If you look at the details of him getting dragged, this is not some passive thing that happened to him. He had broken a rear window of a car and when the driver took off he held on and tried to deploy his taser on the driver multiple times as the driver tried to swerve around and shake him off. This guy is a fucking idiot cowboy. A reasonable officer properly trained lets go and steps back. A dangerous dickhead fool acts like he is in an action movie. He should have been given a desk job and a psychiatric evaluation.

So many bootlickers on here nowadays...

Regarding Jonathan Ross's body cam footage linked by @9, it's definitely revealing. It can't be rationally argued that he was not in front of the car when it starts lurching forward. It's unfortunately probably exonerating.

But this man is a murderer in his heart. He's not shooting to save himself, as he clearly is able to get out of the way, and because he keeps firing bullets into this poor woman's head from the side at close range. What he was doing was waiting for an opportunity to blow Renee Good's head off because he hated her and her partner. Good is clearly just interested in driving away. If she was trying to run the officer over she very easily could have done that, no problem. Her "mistake" was getting two lax and cavalier with potentially dangerous gunmen. They'd all been encountering each other for quite some time, and Good got too comfortable. She gave Ross just the tiny crack of daylight that he needed to justify blowing her brains out, and he chose to blow her brains out.

Look how fast he is on his gun. Even super well trained cops aren't pulling a gun in that situation unless it's already a preset idea. The normal order of things is jump out of the way, pull the gun. That's the human impulse. Ross pulls the gun and then jumps out of the way. The absolute most generous way that one might characterize him is as a terribly trained and dangerously misjudging cop. But I think it's extremely likely that what he is is a fascist combatants psycho piece of shit type. It appears that he had the right to shoot Good, but he sure as fuck did not need to unless he actually wanted to, and what's more in those moments right before was planning for it.

Bad people like Ross are repulsive and terrifying, I fucking hate it that there are guys like him on our planet.

There are some very serious, earnest folks out there who, while wearing inflatable Stay Puff Marshmellow Man costumes with billowing kaffiyehs make the following claims/reccomendations;

Not only are ICE agents being deployed in a wholly unconstitutional manner as minions for a nefarious agenda, such agents are described as; thuggish, poorly trained, of low caliber, trigger happy, sadistic, erratic, and "ism'ed" to the 9s.
The best way to confront these officers is through direct action, playing in a tactical/legal gray zone of direct confrontation in order to hamper or block their ability to perform their orders.
Upon discovering that an individual somewhere out there, having absorbed point 1 and then acted on point 2 now gets zeroed, the Marshmellow folk react with shock, horror and rage...as if point 1 was disingenuous.
Points 1-3 now spin up into a surge tide. The public is urged on to replicate the process enmasse. Different individuals in different cities are to harrass and physically confront federal agents who may or may not zero them.
Any knockoff effects from step 4 will now suffice for a call to violent mass revolt in order to topple the government. Step 5 is particularly fun because it involves Stay Puff Marshmellow Man; lighting J6 votive candles on the same evening as setting government infrastructure on fire, hectoring gun owning conservatives on the need for gun control both before and after attending John Brown Gun Club training sessions, championing democracy as they advocate for non electoral regime change. I believe Kristo hit step 5 last night. More will follow.

In time we will see how it all plays out, but from the unique perspective of the world's only yurt dwelling, loose leaf tea drinking Zionist with right of center political views who has never touched cocaine in his life, I believe my recently reimagined lived experience provides an occasional insight! :)

@59 "Regarding Jonathan Ross's body cam footage linked by @9, it's definitely revealing. It can't be rationally argued that he was not in front of the car when it starts lurching forward. It's unfortunately probably exonerating."

It's not his bodyworn though it's from his cellphone which he's holding extended in front of him, as can be seen in his reflection on the car in the video itself (and others already released). Those who released and are spreading it certainly hope people incorrectly assume it's the bodyworn and therefore exonerating though.

@59 Having a phone in your pistol's support hand would be a rather bizarre thing to do if you were planning beforehand on shooting someone. She does not need to be "trying" to hit him to flee with reckless and dangerous disregard. Three shots in two seconds is not at all unusual in a defensive shooting. I suppose we can imagine that inside his head he was plotting murder and delighted in the idea, but if we are going off the objective evidence and not mind-reading, the shooting was, as even you were forced to admit, lawful.

@1 Eric Weinstein is not a serious person - I can only assume we can put this diatribe next to Geometric Unity as a "work of entertainment"

You being a fan explains a lot.

@58: Which bootwear are you referring to? Antifa, Nazi, Anarchist, Terrorist, etc.

@63 It's actually quite a good analysis of this situation. Can't say I follow much of his geometry pursuits, but I think I can safely doubt you're qualified to examine the work of a Harvard mathematics Ph.D., so your sort of empty sneering explains much more about you.

Lawful my ass. Lawful evil at best.

The ICE officer's problem is that if he was in front of the car, the first shot almost certainly didn't kill Good. It's too low and to the outside of the car, possibly hitting her in the arm, shoulder, or hip. The ICE officer then comes around the car and shoots her twice in the head from point blank range. He was in no danger then, no reason to fear for his life, no justification other than that he was mad. That's murder.

@57, All valid points, that I am sure will be raised in a wrongful death lawsuit against the U.S. Govt.

The fact that this officer's Federal, public employer apparently did not retrain, or discipline the guy for violating policies and training in the last incident, in order to correct his employment performance, arguably lead to this tragedy.

That does not make the officer's behavior criminal under Minnesota Law. His "cowboy", imprudent tactics could be employment policy violations and/or civil negligence, but that does not negate his right to be in front of the vehicle on a public street or invalidate his reasonable belief that he was at risk of great personal injury when the driver looks right at him and accelerates.

The public school enrollment keeps dropping.

https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/public-school-enrollment-falls-across-wa/

Now can Seattle Public Schools start closing facilities to reflect the demographic trend? Can the schools be sold to, demolished, and redeveloped into much needed housing?

@66 nicely concise.

I didn't realize it was this phone, not a body, and he could have been holding that out to the side making it look more like the car was coming right at him.

Regardless, Jonathan Ross didn't have to kill her. He wanted to kill her, and so he killed her. I don't give a fuck what ultra partisan people are arguing from their trenched, anti-pragmatic extreme edges. It's obvious that this guy is part of a hateful, dehumanizing ideological structure. It's scary, it's the stuff that bitter war and ethnic cleansing are made of. Anyone who is coldly and doggedly defending Ross as not only legally justified but righteous has the social media mental illness. Gross

What kind of a broken terrible human being has their phone in one hand and a gun in the other? Nope, nothing to see here, wasn't planning, hoping, scheming to find a couple seconds of legal cover. Sick fuck

@66, Then the democratically enacted law that makes what happened lawful under Minnesota Law is evil.

The democratically elected County Attorney that will likely decline to bring criminal charges is evil.

The democratically elected Judge going by the letter of that law is evil.

The Legislature that worded the self-defense statute is evil.

The voters that have brought all three into office, or retained them in office, in spite of the wording if the law, and how it's applied, are evil.

Rule of law is evil.

We should allow the self-empannel mob, virtual or literal, and adjudicate these cases by whatever their collective visceral reaction to each case is.

from Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy On Use of Force

placing oneself in the path of a moving vehicle
[or in the path of one ordered to move]
constitutes officer-created jeopardy
and undermines any claim that
deadly force is necessary.

@74: lol, the DOJ use-of-force policy does not actually say that, and furthermore ICE is not a component of DOJ. 😂 Your citation is not only inaccurate, it would also be irrelevant even if it were accurate. Nice one, Kristo! 🤣🤣🤣 How unhealthy is your media diet that you are posting this stuff?? 🤪

@67 You have absolutely no idea where the first shot went, a bullet hole anywhere through the front windshield merely needs to be at the correct angle to strike her head, nor do you have any idea where the second or third shots went, or which impacted. He is also obviously not performing an extensive reevaluation after each shot, nor is he required or trained to. After the deadly force threshold is met, they'll fire until their target is stopped. The Too Many Bullets Were Shot Theory that appears after every defensive shooting is silly and wrong.

Where is Ben Crump when we need him?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Crump

@76: 2 mph is deadly force for person standing beside a vehicle that's turning away? The ICE office didn't even loose his footing and fall down.

The Medical Examiner will determine which bullet was fatal.

@78 The car starts slowly because the front wheels are initially spinning on the ice when she hits the accelerator while it is pointed at him. You are not permitted to drive your 2 ton vehicle into an officer at any speed.

The narrative is already falling apart. Even Mayor Frey has gone from "THIS IS MURDER" to "Erm, there should be an investigation". As usual, avoiding media hysteria and focusing on the primary sources and video results in a much more error-free appraisal of the events.

@79, "You are not permitted to drive your 2 ton vehicle into an officer at any speed." OR ANYONE ELSE.

A 4,000 pound vehicle striking anyone is capable of causing serious physical injury at any speed.

@74 -- ok then
What does it say re:

officer-created jeopardy
&
placing oneself in the path of a moving vehicle?

or is it mum?

@79: Let's be clear. Are you saying that the ICE officer by firing the shots prevented him from being run over?

@81. Why don't you go out and demonstrate for us your personal interpretation of your legal rights while engaging in direct actions with ICE officers in your own vehicle, people who YOU understand to be cruel, trigger happy, erratic. Please set up a live video feed so we can digest your tutorial. Add live commentary as you deftly ply your skills ala Matrix, using such phrases as; feet per second, in that split second, the brief window of the officers reasonable fear for safety, etc.

What's the worst thing that can happen, other than Seattle dedicating a "Kristo Memorial Boulevard" that the rest of us will be stuck on during our commutes?

@81, "officer-created jeopardy & placing oneself in the path of a moving vehicle?" A great argument for a Plaintiff or Respondent to argue in civil court.

It is not an argument a Prosecutor can get admitted in a criminal case. Was the person claiming self-defense (cop or non-cop) in a place they were legally entitled to be? If the answer is "yes", then they retain the right to self-defense with the force allowed by law, which could, but doesn't always, include deadly force.

The DOJ manual is relevant in a lawsuit, but not in a criminal case. It's not law. An employee manual is not law. Only Congress and Legislatures decide what the law is.

@82, Use of deadly (or less than deadly) force in self-defense does not have to be successful in protecting the person exercising it, to be lawful.

Merely attempting to use force against another, with or without injury or death as a result of that ATTEMPT, is binary. It's either lawful self-defense, or defense of others, or its assault, attempted assault, attempted murder, etc.

@85: So if I'm a pedestrian crossing an intersection and a car making a left turn comes a little too close to me that I feel my life is in danger, I'm totally justified in blowing away that driver with a gun. Right?

@84: “The DOJ manual is relevant in a lawsuit”

No it isn’t! 😆 Why does everyone keep waving around some DOJ policy document when ICE is not a component of DOJ? 😝 These officer-involved shootings are like caffeine for internet morons! 😂 The only way the commentary on this could be dumber is if the officer had been an Israeli 🤣

@87. You beat me to the punch!

After careful review and dispassionate analysis, having watched the videos until my eyes melted, and having conducted my own live experiments in a Boeing parking lot with my buddies pickup and a half dozen Salvadoran orphans, I have come to a conclusion that coincidentally matches my a priori suspicions - that is, ICE agent field skills are probably a bit sketchy, therefore requiring a significant increase in federal expenditure to hire higher skilled candidates as well as offering more extensive training. We can simply transfer all those federal subsidies that were canceled for Minnesota social programs to pay for a mo betta ICE!

I also propose having squads of IDF soldiers engage in joint patrols with ICE in order to calm the public that "international" eyes are here on the ground.

Anything we can do to prevent a "Kristo Memorial Boulevard" is worth pursuing, regardless of his insistence on playing Frogger with ICE agents.

'A WSJ visual investigation found that the Minneapolis ICE killing is one of 13 incidents where federal immigration agents have used deadly force against civilians in vehicles since July.'

'In at least three of the shootings, officer pursued a vehicle on foot. Footage also shows officers moving into the potential path of the vehicle or clinging to it while it moved.

'"It's like policing 101. Don't get in front of a car or in their potential pathway, especially if the engine is running," said John Blum, a former North Carolina officer who now develops police training curricula.'

(https://www.wsj.com/us-news/videos-show-how-ice-vehicle-stops-can-escalate-to-shootings-caf17601?mod=hp_lead_pos7)

Congress needs to subpoena Sec. Noem, and ask why her agency's armed federal officers don't know what we routinely teach to toddlers.

86,

Here is what your democratically elected Legislature has said about the subject:

"Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or"

Also in your favor, is that the Supreme Court of Washington State (SCOWS), unlike Minnesota, decided you.have no obligation to retreat before using force to defend youraelf. SCOWS, in State v. Reynaldo Redmond, ruled that you have no duty to retreat from any place you are legally entitled to be.

The.vehicle is coming toward you, creating a design, scheme, scenario that reasonably puts you at fear of "great personal injury." Washington statute plus SCOWS Redmond ruling allows you to use any force, including deadly force, to save yourself, and everyone else, from the driver with their head up their ass.

The legal justification for your use of force is going to be HIGHLY fact and circumstancw dependent. Like in Minneapolis, was the driver looking right at you when they shifted into drive and spun their tires? Were you so focused on the driver and the threat of the portion of the vehicle at eye level, that you never saw what direction the tires were pointed? Or did you? Even if you saw the vehicle tires turning away as the vehicle accerated from a stop, were you still uncertain that the vehicle would turn fast enough to clear you? What were the road conditions.like? Was it icy, like in Minnesota making you think the steering tires would slip just like your feet were as you trued to move away? Even if they miss you, will they hit others nearby? When you fired, had the threat passed with sufficient reaction time for you to have ceased fire?

Your attorney will introduce an expert witness that will testify that normal fight or flight rections had you involuntarily focused on the driver, and the mass of the vehicle coming in a threatening direction, not allowing you to focus on details like the changing direction of tires below your line of sight.

Read the statute. Your entire case, and the words of the statute, are all about convincing the prosecutor, possibly a judge, and possibly a jury that your perception of threat was reasonable, in the molliseconds abailable to you, under great stress. It is not about your perception being accurate or correct, but about it being reasonable, even if wrong. Would someone else placed in your position, of averagr intelligence, been able to reach the conclusion you did?

That is what self-defense cases hinge on. You and your lawyers must force the Prosecutor to prove, beyond a rasonable doubt, that no human could have reasonably seen the threat the way you did, when in the same position, with the same perception and information.

Any testimony, OR jury instruction, about your ability to retreat in the circumstance, will get any conviction thrown out thanks to SCOWS Redmond ruling. In Minnesota, all that testimony and a jury instruction to consider if you had time and footing to retreat comes in.

You likely never get charged in either state.

Practically, why don't we see cases like your hypothetical? It is a exceedingly rare set of circumstances where there is the opportunity to do anything but flee, or get hit and suffer injury or death. 1 in a million circumstance. Those are the cases that go to Supreme Courts and make cringy law.

@89 it's not just ICE:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/police-traffic-stops-shooting.html

"The officer’s defense of killing Mr. Mifflin, who wielded neither a gun nor a knife, is one repeated over and over across the country: The vehicle was a weapon. In a New York Times investigation of car stops that left more than 400 similarly unarmed people dead over the last five years, those words were routinely used to explain why police officers had fired at drivers. ... In about 250 of the 400 seemingly avoidable deaths, The Times found that police officers had fired into vehicles that they later claimed posed such a threat."

@90: Yet the precise time the first shot was fired, Good was clearly turning the steering wheel to her right. His life was never in danger. Perhaps being bumped at the most. If he was fearful of being run over, the immediate instinct is to move out of the way, not taking the time to fire a bullet that won't stop a moving vehicle.

@90: No, all of this is wrong. 😃 The correct answer to Coolidge's hypothetical @86 is: "Hell no, a pedestrian may not shoot a driver just because it looks like the driver didn't see him in the intersection, wtf is wrong with you!" 😃

I think most people would arrive at this correct answer intuitively, simply by exercising their common sense, human empathy, and a mature system of ethics. But I know none of that applies in your case, so Professor Thumpus will do it for you the hard way! 😁

Before you even get to RCW 9A.16.050 ("Homicide—By other person—When justifiable"), you first have to go through RCW 9A.16.020 ("Use of force—When lawful"). After all, you can't use deadly force if you're not allowed to be using force in the first place! 😃

When we read RCW 9A.16.020 on the use of force in self-defense situations, we find that force can only be used in preventing or attempting to prevent an "offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property ... in case the force is not more than necessary."

Offense! Malice! Malicious! These statutory words matter. 😃 You may not use force to prevent accidental harms. You may only use force to prevent deliberate, malicious harms. If a waiter slips on a puddle and comes hurtling toward you, flailing his steak knife wildly as he attempts to regain his balance, you may not use force to protect yourself against the onrushing waiter, even if it is certain that you will be hurt, and even if force would be the only way to protect yourself. You're not allowed to hurt other people for making mistakes, sorry! 😆 Hopefully I am not the first person in your life to teach you this important ethical principle, which also just so happens to be the law. 😁

The rule in RCW 9A.16.020 ends the inquiry. No use of force is lawful against the careless driver in the intersection, and therefore no deadly force is lawful either. But if you're still hungry for more thumpus, it turns out you can also extract that same rule from RCW 9A.16.050, so let's do that now why not. 😛

"Homicide is also justifiable when committed ... when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury."

Design! Another statutory word that matters! 😃 You can't kill someone just because they're bumbling through life in a manner that might get you killed. You can only kill them if they have a plan to kill you.

You've tried to gloss this statutory language in your @90 by calling the bad driving in the intersection a "design, scheme, scenario that reasonably puts you at fear." Well, bad driving is a "deadly scenario" all right. Bad drivers run people over in intersections all the time. But "deadly scenario" is not listed in the statute as a justification for homicide. 😃 You are not entitled to shoot the bad driver unless they have given you some reason to think they are trying to run you over on purpose, as opposed to running you over because they are not paying attention to their driving.

Again, all this stuff should be completely intuitive to a personal of normal ethical development and common sense. I'm a little bit appalled that you devote such an incredible amount of time and effort to galaxy-braining this stuff, only to get the answers completely backwards most of the time. For your own sake, I hope you will decide to get rid of any firearms in your possession. I don't think you possess the knowledge to use them responsibly. Besides the usual physical danger that firearms pose to their users, I think firearms pose a special legal danger in your case.

Future prosecutors, take note! This guy was warned not to shoot! 😉

@93, RCW 9a.16.020 and .050 stand independent of one another. Take either out of the Revised Code and the other is enforceable on its own wording.

None of the Washington Pattern Jury Instructions (WPIC) have juries reading or considering the statutes together or make one contingent on the other. There isn't a controlling precedent making .050 contingent on .020. One govenrs the use of less than deadly force and the other the use of deadly force.

"Design: an underlying scheme that governs functioning, developing, or unfolding" "unfolding"

The Legislature declned to provide their own definition of the term, so we use the dictionary definition (preferably from the year of the statute).

So you have a deliberate movement of a vehicle, moving from human agency in the hypothetical, which can be reasonably viewed as creating imminent threat of great personal injury. An unfolding outcome is imminent.

Then you are misrreading the statute with the word "and" when it contains ""or". "Felony OR great personal injury". Either one triggers the legal ability to use deadly force. You don't need both.

The actor creating the risk of great personal injury may be legally subjected to deadly force to stop imminent threat of great personal injury, even without malevolent intent. E.g. If the person pounding your skull into the concrete is having a psychotic break, seeing you as a zombie. They are not engaged in a criminal act of any kind because their mental state. Its not a malevolent act aimed at you. It's aimed at an imaginary threat. You have the right to use deadly force. Whether the actor is motivated by malevolence (which requires be a mind reader in the milliseconds available for the decision making loop), or bumbling through life, the perception of imminent threat of great personal is no different. The Legislature used the word "or" not "and".

@91, Washington's Legislature defines what is, and is not, a deadly weapon inECW 9.94a.825. When a Legislature does not, courts do through precedent. The definition is similar by either route.

"a deadly weapon is an implement or instrument which has the capacity to inflict death and from the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce or may easily and readily produce death."

So a car may be a deadly weapon, depending on its manner of use. So can a baseball bat. So can a pen (when stabbed at the neck).

Courts have upheld any of those objects, and a nearly limitless of other onject, as deadly weapons on thousands of cases, most mot involving police.

The question is never what was the object, but what was its manner of use? That is a key question in the Minneapolis case. Would it be reasonable to perceive the vehicle, by its manner of operation as a deadly threat?

@95: What drives your passion in this debate?

@94: "RCW 9a.16.020 and .050 stand independent of one another. Take either out of the Revised Code and the other is enforceable on its own wording."

lol, that's why you have to satisfy both statutes if you hope to prevail in a deadly self-defense case. 😄 In order to prevail you must have both a justification for your use of force as well as a justification for killing someone.

It also does not make sense to describe these affirmative defenses as "enforceable." These are defenses, not crimes. They cannot be "enforced" against anyone. 😄

More importantly, you are still failing to grapple with the statutory requirement that self-defense, including deadly self-defense, is only available against deliberate attempts to cause harm, not accidental harms caused through the wrong-doer's inattention.

For deadly self-defense to be lawful, there must be a reasonable belief in the "design on the part of the person slain to ... do some great personal injury." A design means a plan or scheme to cause a particular outcome, not merely some kind of negligent "unfolding outcome" as you suggest. 😄 In fact, by definition, a negligent act is one undertaken without a design—the failure to plan is what makes it negligence! 😆

Your argument that the driver's "deliberate movement of a vehicle" supplies the necessary "design" reflects a misunderstanding of the law of self-defense. The law does not ask whether the wrong-doer had a plan to make a vehicle move. The law asks whether the wrong-doer had a plan to cause a great personal injury. If the answer is no, if there was no reason to believe the wrong-doer had a plan to cause a great personal injury, then self-defense is not available. Again, you don't get to hurt people for making a mistake. You only get to hurt people for attacking.

I think maybe you have, in your mind, glossed the law of self-defense to: "If anyone hurts me, I'm allowed to fight them." That's not the law. The law is, "If anyone attacks me, I'm allowed to fight them." Not every injury is an attack. That's why you don't get to shoot the careless driver in the intersection. Clear enough? 😘

The officer can, in the moment he is firing, quite reasonably believe she is trying to harm him or other officers with her vehicle. His evidence in that moment is that she has just reversed in such a manner that places him from the side of the vehicle to directly in front of the vehicle, has just hit the accelerator with him in front of it, may have even just struck him with the front bumper, and is pulling the officer next to him with his hands on and in the vehicle. He does not have enough info to say if she is "just" fleeing in a reckless manner.

@98: As suggested in @89, part of the investigation should consider why ICE keeps creating and escalating these situations. By running on an icy road and grabbing onto a vehicle which has an operating engine, a person has already assumed great personal risk to himself. What was the law-enforcement reward expected in return for such great risk of personal injury? Could he not simply have noted the vehicle's license plate number and reported it?