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.
https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/2010186763948703839?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So, what gets lost in all of the hand wringing about Good, is that ICE was trying to arrest Mahad Abdulkadir Yusuf. - A Somali who is here illegally - He has prior conviction for sexual assault from 2016 - He also has prior arrests for first-degree assault and an active warrant for obstructing police
While all of this was/is going on this fine upstanding individual seems to still be on the loose. Great job protesters for protecting, aiding, and abetting a sex offender.
https://x.com/popcrave/status/1881505105985650849?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Clearly this would have been the outcome that the ASPL would have preferred in MN, then they'd be silent.
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/2010125139065925862?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
A good, but long, read on the MPLS shooting. Complete with all the things that Dan and his ilk tend to ignore. You know, like actual legal citations and precedent.
https://x.com/curtishouck/status/2010403039073435751?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"Peggy Flanagan, the lieutenant governor of Minnesota, encouraged people to put their bodies on the line. That is irresponsible. Democrats who are encouraging people to obstruct law enforcement, they’re putting them in harm’s way with their rhetoric, and it’s wrong. Republicans shouldn’t do it. Democrats shouldn’t do it. We also have a problem that the Minneapolis police are not allowed to participate – to do crowd control. The encounter between Renee Good and those ICE officers shouldn’t have been – shouldn’t have happened. Minneapolis police should have been there as a buffer, but we don’t have it because Minneapolis ordinances prohibit them from even being there when there’s ICE in coordination. We have to change this. We have to have – Kristi Noem said it this morning – state and local officials need to help ICE do their job, not encourage people to stop them.”
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/2009836197032464459?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/behizytweets/status/2009841298518495586?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/jimfergusonuk/status/2009896930051011068?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Dan's silent, and clueless.
https://x.com/mrandyngo/status/2009788341810597933?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
I'm not surprised at all that the allegedly principled, peaceful ASPL support illegal and violent action.
https://x.com/collinrugg/status/2009415008305008931?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
More threats of violence from the ASPL.
https://x.com/cb618444/status/2009359447139996074?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/amyswearer/status/2009704883830546547?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/thatskaizen/status/2009466174606856335?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/megbasham/status/2009502260603310146?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/farmgirlcarrie/status/2009376572940206123?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
It's rare to commend Chicago for anything, but when they do something good I have to acknowledge it.
https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/2009723299975311446?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
So, I guess Dan's narrative that she wasn't "armed" is more valid than a SCOTUS justice.
https://x.com/mattvanswol/status/2009695108611092611?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
Strangely Dan still sticks to at least some of these narratives.
https://x.com/martinskold2/status/2009125982632845773?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
https://x.com/cjpearson/status/2009112402806423967?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
It's the increasing number of news stories like this, where an innocent victim is murdered by an illegal alien or long term criminal, and the complete silence of the ASPL that diminishes the impact of their performative grief over the latest "victim" whose memory they commodify.
It is instructive to look at the response of the ASPL to Charlie Kirk's murder or to the attempted assassination of Trump and compare the response to the death of Good. I haven't seen a flood of people calling for the deaths of her "wife" and kids, or anything like that. But y'all keep playing your games.
And what if you use your car to try to get away from unidentified, armed masked men who are shouting threats?
ReplyDeleteIf 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.
Interesting questions.
DeleteYour 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.
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.
DeleteArt, 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.
DeleteStrangely 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.
Will you condemn him if he sends in his jackboots to Greenland to assume control?
ReplyDeleteBut, 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.
I generally see no reason to make definitive statements about a speculative hypothetical.
DeleteNever 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.
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.
DeleteTens 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.
DeleteRenee 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.
ReplyDeleteTo hell with ICE and all jackboots everywhere.
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.
DeleteStrange that you didn't get that upset when the IRS added tens of thousands of armed, jackbooted, enforcement agents a few years ago.
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.
DeleteICE 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.
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.
DeleteInterfering on the actions of LE is, in fact, a crime. Those who do so, assume the risks inherent in their actions.
Her "wife" also encouraged her to "Drive" while her "wife" filmed it. Her "wife" also appears to have some responsibility in Renee losing custody of two of her children. Her "wife" seems to have simply assumed custody of the one child she still has custody of, with no actual legal standing to do so. Her "wife" is now a millionaire because of this incident.
DeleteAccording to this murder victim's grieving mother:
ReplyDelete“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!"
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.
DeleteWithout 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.
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.
DeleteThose 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.
Art,
DeleteObviously 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.
I agree. I don't have a problem with the grieving mother saying anything in her moment of grief.
DeleteI'm concerned with the lying lefties....like Dan in this case...exploiting her words to push the Trump-hating narrative.
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.
DeleteThey don't give a rat's ass about anyone on the other side of a GOP, conservative or Trump position or action.
DeleteI would add that the ICE officer's cell phone does not support the notion that Good was "terrified". Not in the slightest.
"She was probably terrified.”
DeleteWe now know that this is demonstrably false.
From the Psalmist, speaking of the Wicked Ones, who sadly, are still with us:
ReplyDelete"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..."
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.
DeleteParaphrasing, exploiting, proof texting, and taking snippets out of context is pretty much all Dan does with scripture.
DeleteI'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:
ReplyDelete1. 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.
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.
DeleteInteresting definition of "common sense" based on things you imagine to be True without any actual evidence of them being True.
DeleteProvide 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.
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.
DeleteOnly a "progressive" liar would make such a case.
Once again I defer dumbasses like Dan to the footage from the ICE agent's cell phone as the situation occurred. This is the very agent who shot this paid protester. There's nothing in the seconds leading to her driving into the agent which suggests any "terror" on her part. She not only wasn't trying to "get away", she was attempting to remain an obstacle to the free flow of traffic, particularly that of ICE officers doing their just duty.
DeleteDan and the ASPL have a long record since @ 2014 of supporting, excusing, defending, or protesting on behalf of some pretty vile people and organizations.
DeleteI can't help but compare the difference in the response of the ASPL when comparing the case of Justine Damond who was shot by an improperly trained, diversity hire, cop for reporting an apparent crime, and the cases of Floyd and Renee. Let's not forget that the cop who did murder Damond, got off incredibly easy given what he did.
The increasing number of videos contradicting the ASPL Narrative is impressive, but I think we know that it'll be ignored or dismissed.
Craig:
ReplyDeletereasonable 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?
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.
DeleteLet'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.
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.
DeleteShe 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.
ReplyDeleteIf 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.
DeleteThe 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.
https://www.westernjournal.com/watch-key-moment-ice-shooting-video-pros-missed-changes-everything-god-saved-officers-life/
ReplyDeleteFor 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.
DeleteIf 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.
Tampon Tim is inciting violence while videos show NO murder, rather self-defense against a fool trying to run over an LEO.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.westernjournal.com/tim-walz-pours-gasoline-fire-lie-minneapolis-ice-incident/
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.
DeleteIf 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?
ReplyDeletehttps://patriotpost.us/articles/124050
ReplyDeleteFrom Jenin Younes, one of the attorneys who sued the Biden administration for alleged free speech violations...
ReplyDelete"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.
I've seen this, and I've seen it dismantled.
DeleteJust 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.
Keep in mind that we're dealing with Dan Trabue, who is dishonest and perverse.
Deletedo 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?
ReplyDeleteYou 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?
If you're not going to answer the question, don't waste my time with idiotic games.
DeleteWhat's "wrong" with us is our willingness to continue allowing you to comment on our blogs. You're a vile liar, pervert and blasphemer who supports the destruction of our nation and its culture.
Delete"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."
ReplyDelete"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
Those like Dan...the stupid in this country...don't care about the law and they don't care about those who defend it. They only care about whatever bullshit cause they farted out on any given day.
Deletehttps://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/01/10/renee-goods-partner-made-a-revealing-admission-about-the-shooting-n4948120
ReplyDeleteThe lady was intentionally trying to hit the ICE officer; it was self-defense, period. Dan doesn't care about the facts.
Dan's embrace of facts is usually pretty selective based on what "facts" will push whatever narrative he's bought into.
DeleteGlenn lied and slandered a good human being...
ReplyDeleteThe lady was intentionally trying to hit the ICE officer; it was self-defense, period. Dan doesn't care about the facts.
Bullshit. Those are literally God-damned lies. One MIGHT try to make the case that this innocent woman who was being yelled at and threatened at gunpoint by angry masked men, that she used poor judgement in not stopping and getting out of the car... one MIGHT try to make that case.
But to slander her by making the false charge that she was terrorist who tried to kill someone, well, that's just diabolical bullshit.
To hell with those sort of soulless, brainless lies.
And I say that because I care about the facts.
Dan's embrace of facts is usually pretty selective based on what "facts" will push whatever narrative he's bought into.
The irony is that none of y'all see that this is precisely what you've done.
I’ll let you continue to spout nonsense if you want, but you don’t own reality.
DeleteWe have much more video evidence than we did when you staked out your narrative and the video evidence hasn’t been kind to your narrative.
We know she wasn’t scared, and knew exactly who she was engaging with. We know that she hit an officer intentionally. We know she was blocking traffic for an extended period of time (a crime) and interfering with federal LE.
As I’ve said, I don’t think she intended to kill anyone, and I don’t think he intended to kill her. She made choices, egged on by her “wife”, and those choices carried risks.
One person could have prevented this, and she chose otherwise.
Of course MPD could have prevented this if they weren’t being used as political pawns and established a buffer.
I’ll note that Dan’s ignoring the violence.
I’ll let you continue to spout nonsense if you want, but you don’t own reality.
DeleteWe have much more video evidence than we did when you staked out your narrative and the video evidence hasn’t been kind to your narrative.
We know she wasn’t scared, and knew exactly who she was engaging with. We know that she hit an officer intentionally. We know she was blocking traffic for an extended period of time (a crime) and interfering with federal LE.
As I’ve said, I don’t think she intended to kill anyone, and I don’t think he intended to kill her. She made choices, egged on by her “wife”, and those choices carried risks.
One person could have prevented this, and she chose otherwise.
Of course MPD could have prevented this if they weren’t being used as political pawns and established a buffer.
I’ll note that Dan’s ignoring the violence.
Tell me this, gentlemen, if and when an actual investigation is done and this cowardly thug is charged with some form of murder or misconduct, will you THEN admit your partisanship blinded you to reality?
ReplyDeleteAlso, the cops assaulted on January 6 were all legitimately in fear for their lives. Would they have been justified in killing dozens of those violent rioters (who WERE actually trying to harm the police)?
Your partisan blindness is showing and you don't even see it.
Given what we know about the county and state judiciary, I can’t see any possibility of a fair investigation or prosecution. Given state law, a conviction seems unlikely. Given the past history of threats of violence if verdicts aren’t what the mobs want, it’s likely to be another farce.
DeleteI don’t make absolute commitments about unknown future events.
I’m sure you’re prepared to charge your hostile, defamatory rhetoric with new evidence, but you demand that we do preemptively.
Thanks for making the point in favor of cops being justified in shooting due to reasonable fear. Unfortunately you don’t get to decide by yourself who is justified and who isn’t. The standard either gets applied across the board or not.
What Renee Good said to the officer before he shot her*:
ReplyDelete"“That’s fine, dude. I’m not mad at you.” "
What the killer said to Renee Good after shooting her three times:
"f***ng b****!"
* Apparently, we hear all that in some of the videos released so far. Specifics are not yet clear as to who called Ms Good a misogynistic slander, but certainly one of the "officers."
These are the people you're defending. Someone who could kill an innocent woman - a woman who can be seen CLEARLY turning her wheels to avoid him as he's walking around. A woman who spoke patiently and kindly to her soon-to-be killer, on the one hand, and the sexist trash who murdered her on the other.
Regardless, the investigation hadn't even begun when the most powerful people in this nation began calling Ms Good a terrorist and worse.
"Over the course of the next five seconds, the agent filming the video moves around the front of the car from the passenger side toward the driver's side, then Good can be seen turning the steering wheel to the right and the car starts to move forward; a shout of "Whoa!" is then heard, followed by three gunshots in quick succession, as the video veers wildly to film the sky.
About three seconds later, a voice can be heard saying, "F---ing bitch," as Good's vehicle is seen moving slowly down the street before the video ends."
"Grab them by the p****."
"They let you do anything"
"F***ing b****"
Those are the people you defend.
The fact that her comment and demeanor completely dismantle your original argument that she was terrified obviously misses you entirely.
DeleteThat the video clearly shows contact, clearly misses you.
That you are prepared to read all sorts of intent into the post shooting exclamation from someone, demonstrates your commitment to a narrative regardless of any contrary evidence.
Unfortunately fur you and your fantasy world, I haven’t “defended” any the things you bitch about.
Your silence on the violent rampage and lack of enforcement tells me plenty about what you defend.
Any further references to the ICE agent as a murderer or to his action as murder will be aborted. If slander is so objectionable to you, I’m going to protect you from engaging in slander.
Delete"Specifics are not yet clear as to who called Ms Good a misogynistic slander..."
DeleteThis quote clearly exposes the vile "grace embracing" ideology of Dan and liars like him. While we are taught to be in control of that which comes out of our mouths (in reality or virtually in print), to suppose there's no degree of justification for calling either of the women in the SUV a "f**king bitch" indicates how false Dan is. Consider:
Rationalization #
1. These women came to the area with the intention of obstructing federal law enforcement officers in the just and lawful performance of their duties.
2. Renee Good chose to be non-compliant with the instructions of ICE officers, with her lesbian partner, while out of the car, was verbally abusive to the officers who were justified in demanding they remove their car from blocking traffic (done purposely) and then choosing to re-enter the vehicle after being instructed to get out of it while Renee chose to remain inside it.
3. With one officer recording the vehicle, the women inside it and the license plate on the vehicle, and the other approaching the driver's side, likely to at the least be more direct and clear in the constructions the driver was to follow or, to physically remove her as is his legal right to do with regard to a non-compliant person, Renee chooses then to move the vehicle backwards and then drive on.
4. In driving on, video evidence clearly shows she ran into the officer who fired upon the vehicle because she was driving toward him instead of following their lawful instructions. (The proximity of her vehicle to the body of the officer she hit belies any claim that he was able to get out of her way regardless of the direction of the front tires at the moment of contact.)
5. Law enforcement and Sec. Noem claim an alarming increase of incidents of automobiles being used as weapons against ICE agents and no "grace embracing progressive" has yet to provide evidence which refutes this claim.
6. The officer who was hit had been victimized by another law-breaker just two weeks prior, having been dragged a considerable distance by the very people "the Goods" were defending.
Whether by the officer who was struck by Good, or by another who witnessed his fellow officer being struck by her, all of the above excuse the use of the contextually appropriate use of the epithet "f**king bitch". It's also appropriate to describe Dan, who again demonstrates what "embrace grace" means by exploiting the situation, the blame for which rests solely with "the Goods", by daring to accuse the officers whose lives are threatened daily now of hating women.
Clearly, "embrace grace" is rationalized lying. Dan again exposes his fake Christianity by choosing to bring up his obsession with grabbing women by the crotch, and continuing to lie about the situation in which Trump said...
"Grab them by the p****."
"They let you do anything"
...and pretending both that and the officer exclaiming "f**king bitch" indicate just what Dan needs them to indicate for the furtherance of his anti-Christian ideology. Once again we see the double standard lie of "embrace grace" which rationalizes inflating the "goodness" of others like Dan (or those Dan likes) while ignoring their sins, while conversely inflating the sins of those not like Dan (or those Dan hates) while ignoring their good deeds, which are often significantly greater and/or more plentiful than their sinful deeds.
Dan's just an inveterate liar and hater.
First, I agree that Dan clearly chooses not to "embrace grace" in the manner he demands of others.
DeleteSecond, it seems at least possible that the phrase he's so upset about was as much of a vulgar and possibly inappropriate expression of regret that she escalated the situation to the point where his shots were justified under both state and federal law.
FWIW, noting that his actions were justified and legal per federal and state law is not defending his actions as much as simply realizing the legal reality that exists.
But calling this young innocent woman a terrorist and slandering her name by falsely, stupidly claiming she intentionally tried to kill someone, THAT'S okay?
ReplyDeleteYour values have been abducted by a dumb conman.
You are the useful idiot of very bad, very stupid people.
You should be ashamed.
Repent.
And again...
We know that she hit an officer intentionally.
Bullshit. These are the same lies of the oppressors that killed Jesus. St James warned you about this and you STILL side with the killers and oppressors. And you better be okay with KILLER, because that is precisely what he did to this innocent woman.
I've never called her a "terrorist", nor claimed that she "intentionally tried to kill someone". So I'm not sure why you keep trying to lie and say that I have done so, or encouraged others to do so.
DeleteLet's not forget that you and others have been referring to ICE agents as "NAZIs, Gestapo, murderers, kidnappers, abductors" and worse for quite some time. Nor let us forget the vile, hateful things that y'all said after Charlie Kirk was killed (none of which I recall you condemning). So how about if you treat both sides the same before you come in here and start blaming me for things I haven't said.
We literally have video of her intentionally hitting the officer, it's right there in living color.
The problems with your whole "siding with a KILLER" shtick is that it's not True, it's a dodge because you've been forbidden from continuing your slander, and it ignores you and your side who have been very supportive and encouraging of multiple KILLERS (or those who've attempted to KILL) over the past few years. The guy who shot Trump, Mangione, the guy who shot Kirk, and y'all have remained silent about many others (the NC transit killer).
Yes, she was "innocent" in the legal sense of "innocent until proven guilty", yet she absolutely had agency and made choices that inexorably led to her death. She held complete control of her fate. She listened to a bunch of "experts" who told her how to push the envelope in her "protest" and to her "wife" who encouraged her. She made an incredibly poor choice, and she endured the tragic consequences.
What a liar Dan is!
DeleteI believe Noem referred to Good and people like her as being a terrorist. They certainly behave in that way (though not always to the same degree). They are certainly terrorizing ICE officers. And they terrorize the populace by referring to ICE agents as "NAZIs, Gestapo, murderers, kidnappers, abductors", who then regard them and this administration in that vein, which provokes more simple-minded TDS-sufferers to join their ranks an increase the frequency and degree of threats to LE officers.
DeleteDan, with absolutely no knowledge of either of the "Goods", presumes to label Renee as "innocent" despite her being guilty in acting criminally. She was clearly and intentionally acting in conflict with both state and federal law with regard to obstructing justice. This is even true if she had no familiarity with the laws of either the state or the federal government regarding her actions. Thus, Dan intentionally and willfully lies about her being "innocent".
I would add that it is most likely the intentions of the officer was to place the Goods under arrest for the violation of the laws regarding their actions, and as they were instructed to get out of their vehicle, their subsequent actions constitute a situation whereby they are justly considered a threat to others. When LE seeks to detain a person, that person is...at least until the officer can feel certain otherwise...a suspect of some degree of criminality. They have the right and duty to physically restrain a non-compliant suspect, and use deadly force if the actions of the suspect indicate a potential for harm.
I guess in Danworld, "do no harm" doesn't include preventing potential harm byone under suspicion or by one being lawfully detained.
I'm not thrilled with the "terrorist" label in all honesty. I understand that there is a sense in which it is not inaccurate, but it is certainly not the best possible choice of words under the current circumstances.
DeleteI also understand the other side which argues that what's sauce for the goose... If one side is going to casually throw out pejorative, false, terms like NAZI, Gestapo, Murderer, etc, then it's not unreasonable to think that they'd be prepared for the same type of response.
That Dan has virtually zero knowledge of any of this informs his entire response. For example, the sainted Ms. Good, has quite the rap sheet for (among other thing) harming her children. She also lost custody of two of her children for some unknown reasons, which couldn't possibly be due to her actions. That she was engaged in at least two crimes at the time of her demise is also ignored.
I agree that the best possible outcome from the the LE would have been to have arrested her. Of course, she'd have been out the next day, but...
Finally, the lack of action on the part of the MPD in providing a buffer between ICE and the protesters is absolutely a significant factor. Had Fry simply chosen not to engage in performative virtue signaling this likely wouldn't have happened. Or she would have been shot by MPD.
"Harm" is a slippery and subjective term in Danworld.
Yeah, I agree arrest would have been best. But that would have required complicity in the arrest by the Goods, which clearly wasn't happening and why one of them ended up dead.
DeleteI'm not sure that "terrorist" is inappropriate, but I would say that since the left has been using it the same way they use "Nazi" when speaking of Americans, it seems more so in the context of leftist "peaceful protesters". I don't know which term would be more accurate, but I can know without even asking those Dan would choose would be far from it.
Craig...
ReplyDeleteThe fact that her comment and demeanor completely dismantle your original argument that she was terrified obviously misses you entirely.
Don't be obtuse.
Earlier, BEFORE they started pointing a gun in her face, she clearly appears to be presenting a calm, agreeable demeanor. I would not be surprised if she's had some de-escalation training, because that's part of how protesters are trained to lower the temperature. That, instead of raising the pressure as these power-hungry, cowardly cowboys are acting from state to state.
But when this UNARMED, young woman had a gun pointing at her face, soon to be used to kill her, she almost certainly was pretty scared. That's when SHE reacted by turning her wheels AWAY from the cowboy and tried to get around him. If he was barely clipped in that process of threatening, then killing, an unarmed woman for the crime of not listening to his orders, well clearly, in a just and moral world, that's on him.
Be better Craig. In the name of Jesus, our Lord, repent for supporting this warring madness against unarmed civilians.
No one is being obtuse here but you.
DeleteYes she did have "training" and from the materials I've seen, from the group that she was affiliated with, the "training" was intended to push confrontation not deescalate it.
She could have deescalated things by stopping her car, putting it in park, having a civil respectful conversation, and obeying lawful orders. She could have deescalated the situation by not inserting herself into a situation where she was violating the law and blocking traffic/a LE operation. She could have deescalated had she not listened to the urging of her "wife".
I'll note here that you've moved away from your initial claims that she was a terrified, innocent, woman who stumbled into the middle of something she didn't understand, and was so terrified that she didn't know what she was doing. You've now moved to acknowledging that she was "trained" for these sorts of actions, and knew exactly who she was dealing with.
FYI, I keep seeing people talk about the proper way to act when confronted with ICE as a protester and one of the most consistent items is to stop and COMPLY with their instructions. She didn't.
Your continued insistence that she was "unarmed" is just you choosing to advocate for a lie and ignore the Truth. I'll let you post your lies, but see no reason to engage with your lies.
Why would I "repent" for something I haven't engaged in, while you continue to lie and refuse to repent for your previous lies and slander?
"Why would I "repent" for something I haven't engaged in, while you continue to lie and refuse to repent for your previous lies and slander?"
DeleteIndeed. We again see Dan exploit Christ and Christianity to defend his vile, morally bankrupt positions. He is no Christian. He just needs to convince enough people he is one so he can lie more effectively.
Given what Dan has said about Sin, sins, salvation, and the like I can't really believe that he understands exactly what repentance entails. He certainly doesn't seem interested in repentance for billions in fraud, or the lying and slander he engages in.
DeleteI could be wrong, but Dan invoking "Jesus our Lord" as a way to force compliance with his hunches seems awful close to the whole "taking the Lord's name in vain" thing. Of course positing a "Lord" who doesn't expect or require obedience because that "Lord" has no "rules" seems contradictory as well.
DeleteIt does seem counterintuitive to say the least. But then, Dan's appeal to "Jesus our Lord" could be an appeal to a Mexican landscaper he knows, for the Jesus Dan speaks of does not resemble the Jesus of Scripture.
Delete"Your silence on the violent rampage "
ReplyDelete???
WHAT violent rampage? Have you all lost your souls, your minds, your eyes??
The violent rampage through a hotel in downtown MPLS.
DeleteHell, even CNN covered it.
Dan pretends he has a soul. He certainly hasn't a functioning mind and he eyes see only what he wants to see, none of which is good.
DeleteIt's just over 700 miles from Louisville, with gas prices at or below $3.00/gal it'd cost around $100 in gas each way. It's less than a 12 hour drive.
ReplyDeleteYet Dan sits comfortably behind his keyboard spewing lies and vitriol, instead of putting himself on the line to fight fascism.
Another excellent article proving ALL of Dan's assertions to be wrong. The woman KNEW what she was doing.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/01/the_minneapolis_shooting_the_facts.html
We all know at this point that none of the evidence beyond what Dan acknowledges will matter to him in the least.
DeleteWhat's amusing is that the reason why so much video is available of this incident is due to the crime rate in MPLS. Which is due to left wing policies. Which are due to people just like Dan.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTYqm3Ikthg/?igsh=NmlleG5rcnM4aDE2
ReplyDeleteSo, it's inherently evil to call Good a "terrorist" but perfectly acceptable to double down on calling Kirk a "NAZI".
WOW! This girl is totally framing solidly logical arguments of Kirk in a manner to perpetuate the crap that he's a Nazi. I'd bet we could do the very same thing, with more accuracy to most every Democrat politician.
Delete