Just as a general rule, if you try to use your car to run over a LEO, you run the risk of injury or death.
https://x.com/mazemoore/status/2009391455891038259?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
What an interesting take from one of the real journalists at CNN. Ashli Babbit deserved to be shot/killed for "breaking into" the capitol, but somehow that logic doesn't extend to anyone else.
https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/2009695108611092611?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
The linked body cam video might alter some of Dan's vehement claims, but I doubt it.
I drove past the scene and had two observations.
First, the street is narrower than normal because of ice and still had ice after days of rain and warm temps.
Second, there was a "protest" of sorts with the most interesting factor being a Mexican flag.
41 comments:
And what if you use your car to try to get away from unidentified, armed masked men who are shouting threats?
If your Felon shot a person in the middle of a busy street, would you hold him accountable?
But, never mind. We know the answer. You've made your allegiances clear.
Will you condemn him if he sends in his jackboots to Greenland to assume control?
But, never mind. We know the answer. You've made your allegiances clear.
What if it was a beloved friend or family member in the car, fearful for her life, trying to get away from armed, masked men...?
But, never mind. We know the answer. You've made your allegiances clear.
Shame.
Renee Nicole Good. Her wife saw her murdered. She has a six year old child. She was a poet. Her "crime" that caused her to be executed in broad daylight was trying to get away from armed masked men threatening violence. She was not trying to run over anyone.
To hell with ICE and all jackboots everywhere.
According to this murder victim's grieving mother:
“That’s so stupid” that she was killed, Ganger said, after learning some of the circumstances from a reporter.
“She was probably terrified.”
Ganger said her daughter is “not part of anything like that at all,” referring to protesters challenging ICE agents. “Renee was one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” she said. “She was extremely compassionate. She’s taken care of people all her life. She was loving, forgiving and affectionate. She was an amazing human being.”
Get on the right side of history. Get on the right side of Christianity. To hell with ICE, this pagan pedophilic administration and all their supporters/defenders.
"Lord, listen to your children praying!"
From the Psalmist, speaking of the Wicked Ones, who sadly, are still with us:
"In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak,
who are caught in the schemes he devises.
He boasts about the cravings of his heart;
he blesses the greedy and reviles the Lord.
In his pride the wicked man does not seek him;
in all his thoughts there is no room for God.
The wicked man's ways are always prosperous;
and God's laws are rejected by him;
he sneers at all his enemies.
He says to himself, “Nothing will ever shake me.”
He swears, “No one will ever do me harm.”
His mouth is full of lies and threats;
trouble and evil are under his tongue.
He lies in wait near the villages;
from ambush he murders the innocent.
His eyes watch in secret for his victims;
like a lion in cover he lies in wait.
He lies in wait to catch the helpless...
But you, God, see the trouble of the afflicted;
you consider their grief and take it in hand.
The victims commit themselves to you;
you are the helper of the fatherless.
Break the arm of the wicked man;
call the evildoer to account for his wickedness
that would not otherwise be found out..."
I'll tell you what IS common sense: IF you and a band of angry, armed, masked men are fomenting trouble in a crowd and an unarmed woman in a car is afraid of what you're doing with your guns and violence, she WILL likely try to drive away. It's common sense, then, for actual law enforcement agencies (and really, any decent moral human who isn't a giant cowardly jackass) to:
1. Seek to deescalate the scene rather than escalate the violence; and
2. Oh, I don't know, DON'T SHOOT AN UNARMED WOMAN who is merely trying to get away from your violent, dangerous behavior.
Good Lord, have mercy on those abused by violent men and render justice on those who promote and defend violence against unarmed, non-threatening people.
Interesting questions.
Your first question assumes facts not in evidence, as it relates to the MPLS incident. So, let's look at the facts that are in evidence.
1. She intentionally inserted herself into a federal law enforcement operation, she knew exactly what the LEO in question were.
2. A 4000 pound plus vehicle is a deadly weapon against pedestrians.
3. Law enforcement shouting at someone who refuses to obey lawful commands, is a relatively routine occurrence.
4. Simply following the lawful instructions to stop, would have ended the confrontation peacefully.
5. She chose to insert herself in the middle of a situation, choices have consequences.
6. This will be investigated by local authorities (the city, county, and state have demonstrated that they are not impartial investigators and have shown a pattern of hostility to LE over recent years), as well as the federal government. It'll likely become political, and the politics will likely obscure the facts of the case.
7. Established law is pretty clear in finding that the primary factor in cases like this is whether or not a reasonable fear existed on the part of the LEO.
Yes. Just like I support holding this officer accountable to a full, fair, and impartial investigation.
No, you don't know anything. You just take the easy route and make shit up.
I generally see no reason to make definitive statements about a speculative hypothetical.
Never mind, you don't care about the answer because you've made up your mind based on your prejudices, preconceptions, an political biases.
I guess that would depend on who these "masked men" were, wouldn't it. Wouldn't it also depend on why they were there? Among other things.
Never mind, you don't care about the answer because you've made up your mind based on your prejudices, preconceptions, an political biases.
FWIW, if someone I knew planned to insert themselves into the middle of a law enforcement action, and to refuse to comply with lawful orders, I would warn them about the potential consequences.
Unfortunately, you can't really make the "masked men" argument for a couple of reasons.
1. There is an organized network of protesters who seek out these sorts of situations and know exactly who (in the sense that they're ICE) they are engaging with. The victim knew before she showed up that she was going to FA with federal LE, and chose to do so anyway.
2. Unless you plan to apply the same standard to the violent, left wing protesters, rioters, and the like you have no credibility.
Craig:
reasonable fear existed on the part of the LEO.
"reasonable fear" has been a tool of abuse to save cowardly LEO for centuries, now. It's time to be more judicious and not rely upon an abuse of the phrase to let people get away with literal murder.
Also, you all ALWAYS lean on "reasonable fear" of cowardly cops, but do you EVER say, "Wow, that woman/former missionary/poet/mother had a GUN pointed at her by a bunch of masked armed men... men (ICE) she knew, as we all know who read the papers, have been abusive and violent in dealing with protesters... SHE had a reasonable fear to move AWAY from that gun pointed at her..."?
What about the VICTIMs of these abuses and their reasonable fears? They, after all, are NOT armed and NOT trained to deal with violent situations and armed masked men pointing guns at them.
How about that old white guy who had a bunch of teenagers mistakenly show up at his house and ended up shooting/killing them (it's happened more than once, so I'm using "them")? Did you support HIM engaging in deadly violence as a "stand your ground" law kind of defense when there literally was no crime happening, literally just innocent teenagers making an innocent mistake... but HE was afraid of these mistaken teens.
Did you defend HIS reasonable fear in assaulting/murdering innocent people?
Renee, chose to leave her child and protest. She chose to engage in the actions that put her in the position she was in. She chose not to simply stop and put her vehicle in park and explain that she was trying to do. At a very minimum she was engaged in two crimes at the time. But let's ignore her making the choices that played a role in the final outcome.
Strange that you didn't get that upset when the IRS added tens of thousands of armed, jackbooted, enforcement agents a few years ago.
She's right. It was stupid that she got killed. She could have prevented her death multiple times. All she had to do was comply with their order to stop, and explained that she wasn't protesting.
Without knowing anything about Renee, I'll note that we regularly hear these kind of things from the parents of some incredibly vile human beings who've been killed.
Yes this was tragic. But Renee had agency and the ability to affect the outcome, as well.
The problem with this sort of knee jerk, politically biased response is that it ignores the reality that multiple things can be True at the same time.
It could be True that she was completely unaware of what she'd gotten herself into.
It could be True that she intentionally chose to interfere.
I could be True that she was scared.
It could be True that she was trying to hit the LEO.
It could be True that the LEO had a reasonable, rational, justifiable, fear of injury or death based on the circumstances in real time.
You don't actually know, but you are acting as if you do.
She was told to go there by her lesbian "wife." She got involved in a protest because her lesbian "wife" told her to do so. She knew what she was getting into. Her mom said that she should have minded her own business instead of getting involved in protesting.
It was the protesters fomenting trouble, not the Law Enforcement Officers. The LEFT is lawless and get upset when they are held accountable for their actions. The LEFT has been inciting riots, the LEFT are the violent people who refuse to give justice to illegals and gangs, etc. AND if you point your car at an LEO, you are armed with a car and threatening the LEO.
https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-key-moment-ice-shooting-video-pros-missed-changes-everything-god-saved-officers-life/
Tampon Tim is inciting violence while videos show NO murder, rather self-defense against a fool trying to run over an LEO.
https://www.westernjournal.com/tim-walz-pours-gasoline-fire-lie-minneapolis-ice-incident/
Interesting definition of "common sense" based on things you imagine to be True without any actual evidence of them being True.
Provide objective proof that the ICE was "angry".
Provide proof that they were "fomenting trouble".
Provide proof that Renee was "unarmed".
Provide proof that there was any "violence" prior to her actions.
Provide proof the her choosing to ignore the lawful commands to stop was a reasonable, rational choice.
For starters.
1. The best way for her to "deescalate" the situation was for her to have stopped and peacefully interacted with LE.
1a. When a driver is told to stop by LE, failing to do so will escalate the situation virtually without fail.
1b. There was no violence until she refused to comply with a legitimate request/order to stop.
2. Unless you intentionally choose to ignore reality, a vehicle IS (or can be) a weapon. Therefore she was in control of a weapon capable of causing death or injury to those on foot in the immediate vicinity.
2a. Please provide objective proof of what Renee's intentions were as she was driving through a crowd of pedestrians.
3a. A minor note, but why would someone as wonderful as Renee is purported to be choose to intentionally violate MN state law regarding licensing motor vehicles?
You keep using the term "violent" with no proof that they were engaging in violence before Renee started driving in their midst. You act as if someone driving erratically within feet/inches of pedestrians is not "threatening", and as if a 4000 pound plus vehicle isn't a weapon.
Somehow I suspect that you'll wholeheartedly support Walz bringing in the National Guard (more armed, "violent" people) who have no real training or experience in dealing with these situations. It's not like Walz doesn't have a documented history of using the MNG to threaten peaceful, law abiding civilians.
One last thought. The city of MPLS could have provided police to provide crowd control and a buffer between the ICE agents and the protesters, they chose not to do so. It seems as if there could be some responsibility there as well
One more last thought. Let's not forget the incident last year where hundreds of protesters, and multiple city officials intervened in a raid (which included ICE) which resulted in shutting down an drug and sex trafficking ring.
Y'all are certainly defending some wonderful people.
If I choose to drive down a public street in MPLS this afternoon and I am confronted by a large group of people with masks on (It's cold up here and people wear masks regularly)who appear to be angry, possibly making threats of violence, and armed, do I have the right to drive through the middle of the crowd (or even within inches/feet) of the crowd without expecting any negative consequences?
https://patriotpost.us/articles/124050
That the standard of "reasonable fear" might have been abused in the past, doesn't mean that it's not still a viable standard. Of course, that is an issue to be resolved at trial, not by you making unfounded assumptions.
Let's try it this way. If you are on foot on an ice covered street which is significantly narrower than intended because that's the reality of MPLS streets in the winter, is it not reasonable to have some degree of fear when someone is driving a 4000 plus pound vehicle within inches of you and in the context of a protest. For further context, it must be remembered that MPLS "protests" have a track record of getting violent. Are you prepared to state as an objective fact that there was not reasonable fear of harm?
Your choice to call this "literal murder" in an attempt to be provocative, or as a show of your ignorance, doesn't help your credibility at all. At this point there hasn't even been a charge lodged, but you've decided that you are the judge and jury.
You keep asserting things which you have absolutely no grounds to assert. You are simply making unproven statements about her state of mind, motivation, and choices which you simply have no basis to assert as fact.
FYI, "reasonable fear" is a legal standard which only applies in certain circumstances.
Your attempt to have it both ways "unidentified masked men" and she "knew" all sorts of allegations about the people she was aiming her SUV at. If she "knew" then she could/should have complied with their request/order to stop. Had she stopped, it seems likely (assuming no ill intent or provocation) that she would have been allowed to move out without any possibility of confusion or misunderstanding on either side.
FYI, there was no gun "pointed at her" until she began to drive erratically and threaten the LE.
The "VICTIMs" have access to recourse both legal and civil. Likewise, she could have simply stopped when told to stop and she'd still be alive today. How much training does one need to stop when told to stop by LE? If we didin't have such a treasure trove of body cam videos showing
people doing the stupidest things to escalate minor traffic stops or shoplifting arrests, I might agree with you. But there are a lot of stupid people out there when it comes to dealing with LE.
If your going to embellish/lie about the circumstances, I see no reason to take you seriously.
The most recent case of a "white guy" shooting people has VIDEO of the "victims" violently breaking down his door and clear intent to harm him. But whatever, with your vague and unrelated excuses. Would you prefer that they actually shoot, beat, or stab the homeowner before he is allowed to defend himself? As you've offered no specifics, I see no reason to give specific answers or to spend a lot of time indulging your off topic nonsensical attempts at diversion.
Obviously those situations are each different and must be evaluated differently. Of course they don't have any connection or relevance to the current situation.
Yes, I absolutely support the right of people to defend themselves, their families, or property from those who would do them harm within the appropriate laws governing such use of force.
For me and the way my house is laid out, there is a point in the house where it becomes clear that the intent of someone who's broken in is to cause harm to me or my family. From that point on, their risk of harm increases greatly.
If she exercised her individual agency and chose to protest, chose to drive her SUV through the middle of a LE action, and chose to ignore the request/demand to stop, she is not free from responsibility for the results of her actions.
The legal principle from civil litigation that seems appropriate is Contributory Negligence. The notion that her actions contributed to the reaction by the LEO therefore mitigates his liability.
That's not a perfect analogy, but it works.
The problem folx have is that they want to divorce the REACTION of the LEO from the ACTIONS that led up to it.
Ultimately, it's pretty simple. If you see police engaged in a "raid", don't drive into the middle of the action.
For various reasons, I've been so bombarded with partisan overreaction to this that I've pulled back from the coverage somewhat for a few days.
If this was anywhere but MPLS/Hennepin county, I would be confident that there would be a full and fair investigation before a decision was made about the charges. But given the hostility of both the city and county to LEO, and the threats of violence from the mobs, I have no doubt that this will be another kangaroo court situation.
Walz needs any distraction he can get to take attention away from the massive fraud that he's overseen and ignored for years. Hell he gave one of the fraudsters an AWARD. Likewise Ellison is on record promising to protect the fraudsters and also needs the distraction. They'll both jump on this with both feet.
We've responded in the affirmative every time Dan's asked this bullshit question about holding the falsely convicted President Trump accountable if he is actually guilty of criminality. What we won't do...with regard to Trump or anyone else...is presume guilt and then without evidence which leaves no shadow of doubt, insist a person is guilty, as Dan does constantly with his hateful regard of Trump specifically and conservatives in general.
Dan, and other "progressive" liars who defend actual criminality and perversions, ignores the reason why these LE officers shield their identity. It's to prevent those Dan defends from doxxing them, threatening their lives and harassing them at their homes. Dan's kind mask up to allow themselves to avoid accountability for their criminal actions.
Dan, like all other "progressive" liars, puts the welfare of illegal invaders above that of his own people under the false claim of "Christian" duty. Renee Good was not "murdered", but again, Dan's a liar. Lying is what he does.
ICE doesn't "threaten violence". Violence befalls those who obstruct ICE as they do their duty under the law, and rightfully so.
To hell with Dan and lying "progressives" everywhere. And indeed and unfortunately, they are everywhere.
Art, you know that Dan doesn't ask questions like that because he's interested in the answer, or remembering the answer, he asks because it' a diversion.
Strangely enough, when we use Dan's stock answer, "We oppose all of ..." that's never good enough for him. He demands that we condemn whatever specific outrage catches his eye, while holding himself to a completely different standard.
Good's grieving mother's supposition is of no value. She has no idea if Renee was terrified or not. Like the lying leftists of the press and Dem political class, Dan trumpets the words of Good's grieving mother to further demonize those who are doing their duty to detain, arrest and/or deport those who intentionally broke our just immigration laws.
Those like Dan and all other "progressive" liars, care neither for Good, the law, the illegal invaders and worst of all, their fellow Americans who reluctantly accept that assholes like Dan and the lying left are nonetheless "fellow" Americans. No. They only care about interfering with the good, necessary and beneficial work of the current administration and the furtherance of their agenda of perversion and evil.
Tens of thousands of rioters burning and looting MPLS hiding behind masks (and christians providing the masks) doesn't bother Dan. But protecting LE from being doxxed, that's where Dan draws the line.
It's always a special thing when Dan exploits Scripture to defend true wickedness he loves more than anything. It's another case of a pervert calling evil good and good evil. It's who Dan is.
I don't think Dan is courageous enough to actually put himself at physical risk to protest, but those who align with him politically certainly have actively interfered with the arrests of drug dealers, rapists, sex traffickers, and other criminals (beyond immigration crimes) up here for quite a while.
Interfering on the actions of LE is, in fact, a crime. Those who do so, assume the risks inherent in their actions.
Well that's just it. Dan defends the worst of us in order to unjustly attack those far better than he'll ever be. LE has the right and duty to make requests of the citizenry in order to enforce the law. Citizens are required to comply. If you're driving along and come to an intersection where a cop is directing traffic and you ignore his directions, you are violating the law. If the cop demands you pull over because of a traffic violation, you are not justified in ignoring his instructions and will be considered hostile. The escalation of tensions is the result of further dismissal of the cop's instructions, not the cop's expressing them.
Only a "progressive" liar would make such a case.
Dan is just a vile and inveterate liar who is more focused on disparaging anything remotely related to the best president under whom he's lived since Reagan. Dan prefers perversion over order and righteousness. Dan's false claims of being Christian are validated as false with most every comment he posts.
Art,
Obviously the grief stricken mother's statement is hardly unbiased or really accurate. I don't blame her for her response, but it's not really something to be uncritically accepted as a statement of fact. Look at how George Floyd was eulogized and lionized despite the fact that he was a repeat offender and drug abuser. I don't object to her saying what she did, but I do object to people like Dan who are trying to manipulate her grief to score political points.
They clearly have a strange hierarchy of laws that they demand obedience to. One event, repeated in an accounting ledger, magically becomes multiple felonies and must be enforced to the last detail. But interfering with LE, immigration law violations, billions in fraud, all not enough to protest.
If these people were consistent, they'd be protesting in front of every day care, autism center, transportation company, restaurant, and rehab center that's been stealing money from the US taxpayer.
Paraphrasing, exploiting, proof texting, and taking snippets out of context is pretty much all Dan does with scripture.
I agree. I don't have a problem with the grieving mother saying anything in her moment of grief.
I'm concerned with the lying lefties....like Dan in this case...exploiting her words to push the Trump-hating narrative.
From Jenin Younes, one of the attorneys who sued the Biden administration for alleged free speech violations...
"I'm a former defense attorney and currently a civil liberties attorney with no political dog in this fight. I watched the video at least 10 times from different angles and at different speeds and waited to offer an opinion, which I still reserve the right to change if additional information changes the calculus.
It is very clear that the officers instigated the confrontation. The woman initially tried to wave them past her. ICE officers have no authority to search a US citizen or arrest her (unless there's probable cause to believe she's harboring undocumented individuals, not a contention here).
A woman surrounded by masked, armed men who have no law enforcement authority over her has every right to try to escape.
Video shows her steering wheel is turned to the right, clearly an attempt to leave WITHOUT hitting anyone and steer clear of the officer standing towards the front of her car.
That officer had time to step to the side, which is where he was when he shot her. Even a real police officer would not have the right to shoot at her for trying to flee.
This is well-established in the case law; deadly force may not be used simply to prevent someone from getting away. Given that the ICE officers had no law enforcement authority to begin with, AND the video footage shows she was trying to escape a perceived threat, not to kill anyone, the crime is all the more inexcusable."
But don't let reality stop y'all from celebrating the murder of an innocent mother and citizen.
do I have the right to drive through the middle of the crowd (or even within inches/feet) of the crowd without expecting any negative consequences?
You have the right to do that and NOT BE MURDERED for it. Do you seriously disagree?
Do you think driving close to a crowd (NOT trying to kill someone, contrary to what your venomous bastards in charge are slandering this woman with!) justifies someone to shoot you in the face??
Also, ICE does NOT have the authority, I believe, to stop US citizens and certainly not the right to shoot anyone in the face four times.
What in the name of all that is holy and good is wrong with you all? How did your moral compasses and basic human reasoning get so badly broken?
I've seen this, and I've seen it dismantled.
Just being a "defense attorney" doesn't give someone magical powers to jump to conclusions.
To start with, the fact that they only watched "the video" calls their credibility into question. I keep seeing a video of one of the LE being struck by the SUV. So maybe there's more information available that this person had when they jumped to their conclusion.
But don't let this one person who you found on some random FB post stop you from making up or spreading lies.
If you're not going to answer the question, don't waste my time with idiotic games.
The problem is that that's what the ASPL does. They take tragic cases where people are injured or killed and exploit those cases for political or financial gain. These people don't give a rat's ass about Renee beyond her utility to further the narrative. Just like they didn't give a rat's ass about Michael Brown, George Floyd, or any of the innocent people killed or raped by illegal aliens or repeat felons.
"I've now watched the Minneapolis ICE shooting from three different angles, and there's no real question -- it was quite obviously a legally justified use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer. That officer faced an unknown subject who, while ignoring lawful commands, pointed a 3000+ lbs. car at him and evidenced an intent to continue driving that car. He shot the driver (1) after the driver made physical contact with his body and (2) through the front windshield. You can slow down the video all you want and spend minutes analyzing micro-seconds to make after-the-fact assessments of the likelihood the driver actually intended to use the car as a lethal weapon. In reality, during those micro-seconds in real time, it's reasonable to presume that a driver ignoring your commands to stop is about to floor the gas peddle, turn the wheel into you, and run you over. It's no different than the reasonable presumption that the suspect who ignores your commands to keep their hands up and reaches for the gun in their waistband intends to use it against you rather than toss it away."
"And for the "it was an illegal arrest because ICE has no authority to detain American citizens, etc." crowd...
Minnesota law explicitly authorizes federal immigration agents to make warrantless arrests when, within the scope of assignment, they come upon reasonable cause to believe "any felony" has occurred.
Impeding a federal agent [such as by angling your car across a roadway to block their travel] is, in fact, a felony.
You may think it's weak potatoes, but those potatoes still make french fries."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/G-Gvo5pWEAAkMVM?format=jpg&name=large
Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow Advancing American Freedom
Post a Comment