Hundreds protest in Minneapolis after ICE officer kills Renee Nicole Macklin Good

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 8:21 AM

https://apnews.com/live/minneapolis-ice-shooting-updates

A hospital record obtained by The Associated Press identified the woman as 37-year-old Renae Macklin-Good, though business records spelled her name as Renee Nicole Macklin Good. Calls and messages to the woman’s family were not immediately returned.

In social media accounts, Macklin Good described herself as a “Poet and writer and wife and mom” who was from Colorado and currently “experiencing Minneapolis,” and displayed a pride flag emoji.

What the videos show: Videos taken by bystanders with different vantage points and posted to social media show an officer approaching an SUV stopped across the middle of the road, demanding the driver open the door and grabbing the handle. The Honda Pilot begins to pull forward and a different ICE officer standing in front of the vehicle pulls his weapon and immediately fires at least two shots into the vehicle at close range, jumping back as the vehicle moves toward him. It was not clear from the videos if the vehicle made contact with the officer. The SUV then sped into two cars parked on a curb nearby before crashing to a stop. Witnesses screamed obscenities, expressing shock at what they’d seen.

I've seen multiple version of the video, both the shorter clip (that aims portray a certain narrative) that shows it from this angle

And a slightly longer clip from a different angle which is a bit grainy, but appears to show the vehicle actually making some contact with a 3rd agent standing in front of the vehicle

...but any contact appears to be minimal based on the clip.

What makes these situations tricky to assess, is that there appears to be competing "reckless sense of entitlement" between two parties in these types of exchanges.

"It's my right for me and my friends to park our cars across the road to block law enforcement if we don't agree with the law they're trying to enforce" isn't an incentive structure we should be nurturing.
vs.
"I've got the badge, I don't want any inconvenience while I do my job, you better do what I say immediately with no guff, otherwise here comes the Glock" isn't a reasonable expectation for anyone getting into the field of law enforcement, no more than a local cop thinking "I don't want to ever encounter profanity when I'm giving someone a speeding ticket"

Landon Caeli · Thursday at 8:39 AM

Reports are that she had been tormenting the officers all day long. Like the saying goes, "mess around, find out".

BCP1928 · Thursday at 8:45 AM

Landon Caeli said:
Reports are that she had been tormenting the officers all day long. Like the saying goes, "mess around, find out".

Tormenting the officers? My goodness, how evil. Did she throw a sandwich at them?

Landon Caeli · Thursday at 8:49 AM

BCP1928 said:
Tormenting the officers? My goodness, how evil. Did she throw a sandwich at them?

It's not smart behavior. I wouldn't be stupid enough to try that.

Landon Caeli · Thursday at 8:51 AM

But go ahead and charge the officer for murder, I couldn't care less. But she messed around and found out, regardless.

RocksInMyHead · Thursday at 9:00 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
What makes these situations tricky to assess, is that there appears to be competing "reckless sense of entitlement" between two parties in these types of exchanges.

"It's my right for me and my friends to park our cars across the road to block law enforcement if we don't agree with the law they're trying to enforce" isn't an incentive structure we should be nurturing.
vs.
"I've got the badge, I don't want any inconvenience while I do my job, you better do what I say immediately with no guff, otherwise here comes the Glock" isn't a reasonable expectation for anyone getting into the field of law enforcement, no more than a local cop thinking "I don't want to ever encounter profanity when I'm giving someone a speeding ticket"

Laying aside the fact that none of the videos provide enough context for it to be clear whether she was intentionally blocking the road or she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, these are two extraordinarily unequal propositions. There's a very wide gulf between feeling entitled to protest in a disruptive manner and feeling entitled to kill someone who doesn't do what you want.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 9:07 AM

BCP1928 said:
Tormenting the officers? My goodness, how evil. Did she throw a sandwich at them?

I would say that parking one's SUV [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-eyed across the middle of the road to act as a barricade so they can't get to where they need to go, goes beyond normal "heckling".

Though, even that alone wouldn't be justification for lethal force.

It's really going to come down to whether or not it can be determined whether or not she was trying to ram the officer who was standing in front, or a reasonable jury could see it being perceived as such.

RocksInMyHead · Thursday at 9:29 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
It's really going to come down to whether or not it can be determined whether or not she was trying to ram the officer who was standing in front, or a reasonable jury could see it being perceived as such.

There's absolutely nothing to suggest that was her intent, given that her wheels were turned fully to the right, and the only officer in front of the car was on the left corner. It's possible that the officer thought that was her intent (he may not have been able to see, or did not notice, which way her wheels were pointing), but even then, he had opportunity to get out of the way, but instead was actively walking in front of the car to film her face and then reached for his gun rather than taking a step to the right. In fact, if you slow down the clip, he still manages to get clear and isn't actually struck - and yet he still shoots.

ThatRobGuy · Thursday at 9:29 AM

RocksInMyHead said:
Laying aside the fact that none of the videos provide enough context for it to be clear whether she was intentionally blocking the road or she just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, these are two extraordinarily unequal propositions. There's a very wide gulf between feeling entitled to protest in a disruptive manner and feeling entitled to kill someone who doesn't do what you want.

But there's no escaping the authority imbalance that exists between civilians and certain authority figures.

For example, if I'm mad at my neighbor, so intentionally block him from getting to his accounting job, it's a misdemeanor.

If I do the same to a fire truck or ambulance when they're on the way to doing their job, it's a felony.

RocksInMyHead · Thursday at 9:31 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
But there's no escaping the authority imbalance that exists between civilians and certain authority figures.

For example, if I'm mad at my neighbor, so intentionally block him from getting to his accounting job, it's a misdemeanor.

If I do the same to a fire truck or ambulance when they're on the way to doing their job, it's a felony.

That was kind of my point. You're trying to draw a comparison across that imbalance.

High Fidelity · Thursday at 9:59 AM

RocksInMyHead said:
There's absolutely nothing to suggest that was her intent

Intent is irrelevant when his life is in danger.

As for the direction of the wheels, the wheels clear spin on the ice, and the back of the vehicle drops, consistent with hard acceleration, whilst they're pointing directly forward, and before he draws his weapon.

He'd have heard the engine rev, he'd have heard the tyres fail to gain traction on the ice, and likely summised that the driver was intending to use her vehicle as a weapon.

That's worst case scenario, which of course in his situation you assume. Best case scenario is she tried to bump him, didn't move after accelerating, saw him draw his gun and tried to drive off.

Either way a stunning lack of awareness for anyone even remotely familiar with the US to behave the way she did.

She should have obeyed the lawful order. If she was mistreated from then on she could have sued them. But you comply with the police, or at least don't act in a manner that's clearly threatening to them.

All of this is what we saw. Add that to the eyewitness video saying this woman was the leading car in the protest blocking ICE vehicles and trying to impede federal agents going about their investigation, which probably highlights why they didn't ask repeatedly to exit the vehicle.

Loss of life is sad, especially for such stupid reasons, but ultimately she acted in a way that had fatal consequences.

High Fidelity · Thursday at 10:01 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
But there's no escaping the authority imbalance that exists between civilians and certain authority figures.

For example, if I'm mad at my neighbor, so intentionally block him from getting to his accounting job, it's a misdemeanor.

If I do the same to a fire truck or ambulance when they're on the way to doing their job, it's a felony.

That exists for good reason.

It's likely those vehicles are responding to an emergency where loss of life is possible. The same gravity cannot be said for an accountant.

RocksInMyHead · Thursday at 10:28 AM

High Fidelity said:
Intent is irrelevant when his life is in danger.

I was specifically responding to the post I quoted, which talked about the driver's intent, and I addressed your argument in the next sentence.

High Fidelity said:
He'd have heard the engine rev, he'd have heard the tyres fail to gain traction on the ice, and likely summised that the driver was intending to use her vehicle as a weapon.

That is possible, and yet federal regulations on shooting at a vehicle state that all other avenues - including moving out of the way - must be exhausted before firing.

High Fidelity said:
That's worst case scenario, which of course in his situation you assume. Best case scenario is she tried to bump him, didn't move after accelerating, saw him draw his gun and tried to drive off.

"Best"? And no, given the length of time in which this unfolded, that is not a reasonable interpretation of events. Her wheels turn smoothly from full left lock (for reversing and turning to the right) to full right lock as she shifts to drive and attempts to get away. Her initial attempt to accelerate starts while her wheels are still pointed forwards, but they continue to turn to the right as the tires spin, and by the time the gun comes into her view (i.e. above the hood), she is already at full right lock and accelerating away. In fact, it's reasonably likely that she didn't see the gun at all - by that time, she was most likely fully focused on the road to the right, where she wanted to go.

High Fidelity said:
Either way a stunning lack of awareness for anyone even remotely familiar with the US to behave the way she did.
She should have obeyed the lawful order. If she was mistreated from then on she could have sued them. But you comply with the police, or at least don't act in a manner that's clearly threatening to them.

Ah yes, victim-blaming. First of all, she was given conflicting orders. Some of the officers were telling her that she needed to leave, and others were telling her to get out of the car. Second, officers cannot order you out of your car without a valid reason (i.e. during a traffic stop), and such a reason was not articulated. Third, the officer put himself in a position to be threatened by walking in front of her car while she was clearly already trying to leave. There's a reason why police departments tell their officers not to stand in front of a car.

BCP1928 · Thursday at 10:42 AM

ThatRobGuy said:
But there's no escaping the authority imbalance that exists between civilians and certain authority figures.

For example, if I'm mad at my neighbor, so intentionally block him from getting to his accounting job, it's a misdemeanor.

If I do the same to a fire truck or ambulance when they're on the way to doing their job, it's a felony.

But you are unlikely to be gunned down on the spot by a fireman or an EMT for it. It doesn't matter. You don't need to fuss over whether it was legal or not The admistration has declared it a legal hit and their Christian supporters have declared it righteous killing, It's over.

Aryeh Jay · Thursday at 10:51 AM

BCP1928 said:
But you are unlikely to be gunned down on the spot by a fireman or an EMT for it. It doesn't matter. You don't need to fuss over whether it was legal or not The admistration has declared it a legal hit and their Christian supporters have declared it righteous killing, It's over.

Now we need to unleash the full force of the military on the enemies of the administration and have a good old fashioned purge/cleansing.

Larniavc · Thursday at 11:11 AM

BCP1928 said:
The admistration has declared it a legal hit and their Christian supporters have declared it righteous killing,

This is the take away for those of us not inculcated into the shockingly low value America places on the lives on it’s citizens.

Pretty much anything is justification for a killing. If the man hadn’t had a gun the woman would have driven off: which admittedly would have been the gravest of tragedies but she would still be alive.

I confidently expect this man to get away Scotch free.

BCP1928 · Thursday at 11:29 AM

Larniavc said:
This is the take away for those of us not inculcated into the shockingly low value America places on the lives on it’s citizens.

Pretty much anything is justification for a killing. If the man hadn’t had a gun the woman would have driven off: which admittedly would have been the gravest of tragedies but she would still be alive.

I confidently expect this man to get away Scotch free.

Which is abuse of that officer. Even if he knows in his heart that what he did is wrong, the government will make him pretend to be a righteous hero.

High Fidelity · Thursday at 11:39 AM

BCP1928 said:
Which is abuse of that officer. Even if he knows in his heart that what he did is wrong, the government will make him pretend to be a righteous hero.

I think my main reflection from this is that ultimately someone's dead and I and many others feel the need to argue whether or not it was justified.

BCP1928 · Thursday at 11:54 AM

High Fidelity said:
I think my main reflection from this is that ultimately someone's dead and I and many others feel the need to argue whether or not it was justified.

We went through the same issues with the two smugglers who were killed in the wreckage of their boat. The strongest statement about it we got from Christians in this forum was that it was immoral only if it was illegal. I see the same framing going on in this instance.

Vanellus · Thursday at 1:36 PM

The blame the victim campaign is in full flow now. Plus the weak excuse campaign. The government shouldn't be giving guns to trigger happy short fuse people. In fact not having guns routinely as in other countries would stop this kind of thing. That cat wouldn't come down from the tree so I terminated the situation.

In the UK, police fatalities in the line of duty are significantly lower, averaging around 3 to 4 officers killed annually since World War II, while in the US, approximately 160 law enforcement officers are killed each year.

In the line of duty: How often are US police killed?
Deaths by Police Officers US vs UK - Industrial Estate of Mind

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Hundreds protest in Minneapolis after ICE officer kills Renee Nicole Macklin Good

Part of the IT crowd

Taking it back

Well-Known Member

Taking it back

Taking it back

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Part of the IT crowd

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Stuck on a ship.

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads