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

RocksInMyHead said:

This may come as a shock to you, but people move. Sometimes even between states!

Click to expand...

Yea, domestic terrorists!!

ThatRobGuy said:

What happens when a Governor/Mayor order State/Local PD to stand down and not assist federal agents, and not get involved in any matters pertaining to immigration enforcement?

In 2024, Frey and Minneapolis City Council unanimously passed "separation ordinance" that restricts Minneapolis police from helping ICE agents or taking part in federal immigration enforcement related investigations.

Click to expand...

In that scenario the federal agencies should leave the local enforcement to the locals. They don't want nor need their kind of assistance.
Allow the locals the consequences of their own decisions (good or bad).

Aryeh Jay said:

Yea, domestic terrorists!!

Click to expand...

She was clearly in the wrong, and her actions were never going to end well, but the administration coming out with language like that is ridiculous and no better than people branding ICE agents as nazis.

The rhetoric is just silly and not helping anything.

ThatRobGuy said:

That's where "sanctuary" policies muddy the waters.

While, yes, in normal circumstances, the standard protocol would be to take note of the plates, and hand it off to local PD to go make the arrest...
(It sounds like she and some of the other protestors had been following them around quite a bit earlier in the day)

What happens when a Governor/Mayor order State/Local PD to stand down and not assist federal agents, and not get involved in any matters pertaining to immigration enforcement?

In 2024, Frey and Minneapolis City Council unanimously passed "separation ordinance" that restricts Minneapolis police from helping ICE agents or taking part in federal immigration enforcement related investigations.

Click to expand...

Why would they hand off the arrest to local PD for a federal offense?

Los Angeles clergy, protesters denounce fatal shooting by ICE officer in Minneapolis​

A day after a woman in Minneapolis was killed by an immigration federal agent, clergy leaders and advocates gathered on the steps of the downtown Los Angeles federal immigration building to honor her and denounce the killing.

Good’s death has sparked protests that have filled the streets of Minneapolis, putting the city on edge. Similar protests have spread across the country.

“We stand holding the fear and the terror and the sorrow, the deep grief that has transpired needlessly,” said Rev. Francisco Garcia. “Murder at the hands of our tax dollars. State sanctioned. This cannot be, this cannot stand, and we offer our continued witness to stand against these atrocities, against this evil.”

For months, clergy leaders have organized vigils and marches in downtown Los Angeles to call for an end to immigration raids. This time, they felt compelled to speak out because even though Minneapolis is some 1,900 miles away, Good’s death has been felt across the country, said Rev. Carlos Rincon.

“It’s a life that was taken in a horrible way,” Rincon said. “I felt that it was very important to be present, to lament, to pray, but also to denounce. You know what this administration is doing because it comes from the president.”

Fascist youth and terrorists attack ICE at a school after the shooting of the domestic terrorist. Looks like another Kent State is needed to remind the people who's in charge.

RocksInMyHead said:

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.

Click to expand...

First off we don't know the drivers intent. We have no idea if she was truly trying to get away or trying to make contact with the officer in front. We don't even know if she SAW the officer in front of her. Maybe she was focused on the officers who were trying to open her door. So to assign an intent on her part is irrelevant because we have no idea what was going on in her head or what she was hearing or what she saw and was focused on.

RocksInMyHead said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is true, however he was close to the vehicle and had a split second to make a decision on what to do. When watching the video he reacted to her coming toward him and drew his weapon as she was doing so and he was moving to the side and she made contact with him anyway. You can watch as he was moving and then she accelerated toward him. She was not that far away and he drew his weapon as she came at him and hit him.

The legal standard has nothing to do with what the drivers intent is, but what the officer perceived at the time. Graham vs Conner is rhe standard in these cases and recognizes how officers have to make split second decisions on their use of force. The use of deadly force is justifiable if the officer believed he was in danger of death or serious injury.

I would argue a car accelerating toward you in a short distance and you having a split second to react it's reasonable to believe he thought he was in danger of serious bodily injury. Especially since she DID make contact with him knocking him back. Which the video CLEARLY shows.

If he reasonably believed in that split second he was in danger then his actions are legally justifiable.

RocksInMyHead said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is from the point of view from the rear and left side of the vehicle. The officer is in the front of the car and can't see that. But he can hear the engine and hear the spinning wheels as she accelerates toward him. He has a split second to pull his gun and try and fet out of tye way, but the time is so short and limited and he is actually hit by the car. That puts it into a legal perspective of what he reasonably believed at the time. The fact that she did strike him adds credence to the perception that he could reasonably believe he was in danger of serious bodily injury because he did not know her intent.

RocksInMyHead said:

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.

Click to expand...

That is irrelevant to the reasonablness of the officers actions.

RocksInMyHead said:

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.

Click to expand...

Okay. But you dont know what she heard. There was an officer at her door. Let's just say she decided to listen to the order to leave. Why on earth would you accelerate away with a police officers standing at your door. Thats not acting reasonable. Slowly pulling away to be careful not to hit one of them is the reasonable approach.

RocksInMyHead said:

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.

Click to expand...

An officer can order you to stop. And can order you out of the car. In this case it is unknown as to what all was said. And rhat is actually irrelevant as to whether or not the officers use of force was justified because he wasn't the one standing by the window.

RocksInMyHead said:

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.

Click to expand...

No he did not. He was in the front and was acrually walking toward the left of the vehicle when she accelerated toward him and thats when he drew his weapon. He was not standing at the side of the car and then did NOT step in front of the car to prevent her from leaving as she was accelerating. He was already in front as rhe other officers were dealing with her and started to move when she accelerated. He had little to no time to react on a slippery street.

I'm not blaming her. I'm not blaming him. I'm looking at the situation from a legal standpoint. The burden of proof is based on the factors of the case KNOWN to the officer at the time, including the time he had to make a decision. From what I saw, without hearing the officers testimony, its appears to be a case where rhe officer could have reasonably believed he was in danger of at least serious bodily injury as a car accelerated toward him and he had little time to react. And the fact that he was actually struck lends some. credence to that.

RocksInMyHead said:

This may come as a shock to you, but people move. Sometimes even between states!

Click to expand...

And you know that she moved from Colorado to Minneapolis how?

@durangodawood
Got your laugh and agree. Changed my post lol

rjs330 said:

First off we don't know the drivers intent. We have no idea if she was truly trying to get away or trying to make contact with the officer in front. We don't even know if she SAW the officer in front of her. Maybe she was focused on the officers who were trying to open her door. So to assign an intent on her part is irrelevant because we have no idea what was going on in her head or what she was hearing or what she saw and was focused on.

That is true, however he was close to the vehicle and had a split second to make a decision on what to do. When watching the video he reacted to her coming toward him and drew his weapon as she was doing so and he was moving to the side and she made contact with him anyway. You can watch as he was moving and then she accelerated toward him. She was not that far away and he drew his weapon as she came at him and hit him.

The legal standard has nothing to do with what the drivers intent is, but what the officer perceived at the time. Graham vs Conner is rhe standard in these cases and recognizes how officers have to make split second decisions on their use of force. The use of deadly force is justifiable if the officer believed he was in danger of death or serious injury.

I would argue a car accelerating toward you in a short distance and you having a split second to react it's reasonable to believe he thought he was in danger of serious bodily injury. Especially since she DID make contact with him knocking him back. Which the video CLEARLY shows.

If he reasonably believed in that split second he was in danger then his actions are legally justifiable.


This is from the point of view from the rear and left side of the vehicle. The officer is in the front of the car and can't see that. But he can hear the engine and hear the spinning wheels as she accelerates toward him. He has a split second to pull his gun and try and fet out of tye way, but the time is so short and limited and he is actually hit by the car. That puts it into a legal perspective of what he reasonably believed at the time. The fact that she did strike him adds credence to the perception that he could reasonably believe he was in danger of serious bodily injury because he did not know her intent.

That is irrelevant to the reasonablness of the officers actions.

Okay. But you dont know what she heard. There was an officer at her door. Let's just say she decided to listen to the order to leave. Why on earth would you accelerate away with a police officers standing at your door. Thats not acting reasonable. Slowly pulling away to be careful not to hit one of them is the reasonable approach.

An officer can order you to stop. And can order you out of the car. In this case it is unknown as to what all was said. And rhat is actually irrelevant as to whether or not the officers use of force was justified because he wasn't the one standing by the window.

No he did not. He was in the front and was acrually walking toward the left of the vehicle when she accelerated toward him and thats when he drew his weapon. He was not standing at the side of the car and then did NOT step in front of the car to prevent her from leaving as she was accelerating. He was already in front as rhe other officers were dealing with her and started to move when she accelerated. He had little to no time to react on a slippery street.

I'm not blaming her. I'm not blaming him. I'm looking at the situation from a legal standpoint. The burden of proof is based on the factors of the case KNOWN to the officer at the time, including the time he had to make a decision. From what I saw, without hearing the officers testimony, its appears to be a case where rhe officer could have reasonably believed he was in danger of at least serious bodily injury as a car accelerated toward him and he had little time to react. And the fact that he was actually struck lends some. credence to that.

Click to expand...

Yet the government was able to announce (I think before the FBI was even at the scene) that the shooting was an heroic act of self defence against a domestic terrorist intent on killing him. Pull the other one, Jocko, it's got bells on.

rjs330 said:

No he did not. He was in the front and was acrually walking toward the left of the vehicle when she accelerated toward him and thats when he drew his weapon. He was not standing at the side of the car and then did NOT step in front of the car to prevent her from leaving as she was accelerating. He was already in front as rhe other officers were dealing with her and started to move when she accelerated. He had little to no time to react on a slippery street.

Click to expand...

He was walking around the car, filming it. You see him walk behind the car before she reverses. As she reverses, he steps in front of the car and stops, then draws his gun and shoots as she starts to leave. Again, surrounding, walking in front of, and trying to remove the driver from a vehicle who is not otherwise threatening anyone goes counter to every law enforcement guideline I've ever heard of. It's needless escalation that gets people - both law enforcement officers and civilians - injured or killed.

rjs330 said:

I'm not blaming her. I'm not blaming him. I'm looking at the situation from a legal standpoint. The burden of proof is based on the factors of the case KNOWN to the officer at the time, including the time he had to make a decision. From what I saw, without hearing the officers testimony, its appears to be a case where rhe officer could have reasonably believed he was in danger of at least serious bodily injury as a car accelerated toward him and he had little time to react. And the fact that he was actually struck lends some. credence to that.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that will be the argument, and investigators will likely buy it. But it doesn't change the fact that a woman is dead because of the actions of ICE agents on Wednesday. There are many things that they could have done to de-escalate the situation, and as law enforcement officers, that is their responsibility.

Hentenza said:

And you know that she moved from Colorado to Minneapolis how?

@durangodawood
Got your laugh and agree. Changed my post lol

Click to expand...

Sometimes I think the USA should end this free movement between states thing. And movement of fed money too. Let the low productivity states fend for themselves instead of leaching off the high productivity (bluer average) ones.

As for now tho, people can relocate. They can even just travel if they feel like it.

I wonder what state those various ICE agents are from?

Hentenza said:

Why is it that a young woman from Colorado ends up in Minneapolis at the head of a line of cars full of protesters following ICE in an altercation with ICE agents?

Click to expand...

Did you question or understand why Kyle Writtenhouse did what HE did?
Because it's likely about the same thing...pretty much. The difference is that Kyle shot someone and this lady died for what she did. The right praises rittenhouse for shooting someone but is looking for reasons to hate this woman who was shot.

But the motivation was the same; save someone/keep them safe.

BCP1928 said:

And, as Trogdor pointed out, immigration in Australia is seen as a practical problem, not an ideological struggle.

Click to expand...

Then near open borders was an ideological policy. I wish we'd adopt some of Australia laws on lawbreakers. I really like the idea of keeping them on islands.

Hentenza said:

And you know that she moved from Colorado to Minneapolis how?

Click to expand...

Her mother said she lived in Minneapolis with her partner, just a couple blocks from where she was shot.

RocksInMyHead said:

He was walking around the car, filming it. You see him walk behind the car before she reverses. As she reverses, he steps in front of the car and stops, then draws his gun and shoots as she starts to leave. Again, surrounding, walking in front of, and trying to remove the driver from a vehicle who is not otherwise threatening anyone goes counter to every law enforcement guideline I've ever heard of. It's needless escalation that gets people - both law enforcement officers and civilians - injured or killed.

I'm sure that will be the argument, and investigators will likely buy it. But it doesn't change the fact that a woman is dead because of the actions of ICE agents on Wednesday. There are many things that they could have done to de-escalate the situation, and as law enforcement officers, that is their responsibility.

Click to expand...

Wrong. She accelerates and her tyres spin (pointing directly at him, not that he could have known), then he draws his weapon.

RocksInMyHead said:

Which is why, generally speaking, officers are advised to let the person go in that situation rather than trying to block the vehicle or remove the person from the car. Obviously, there are exceptions for if the person is actively threatening others, but that wasn't the case here as she was obviously just trying to leave - the only person (theoretically) under threat was the officer who walked in front of the car during the course of the altercation.

They have her license plate number. They (probably) have photos of her. If they want to charge her with something and arrest her, they have the tools and ability to find her. The sole benefit of dragging her out of the car and/or detaining her at the scene is to send a message and intimidate protestors, which is not something that we should be applauding law enforcement for doing.

Click to expand...

I watch police bodycam videos all the time, so I know how those situations usually play out. Which isn't according to the way you think it goes most of the time.

High Fidelity said:

Wrong. She accelerates and her tyres spin (pointing directly at him, not that he could have known), then he draws his weapon.

Click to expand...

They have about 0.2 seconds to make a decision in a situation like that.

High Fidelity said:

Wrong. She accelerates and her tyres spin (pointing directly at him, not that he could have known), then he draws his weapon.

Click to expand...

Not true.
He reached for his weapon while the car was in reverse.
When the car moves forward he has already positioned himself with his left hand propped against the side of the front fender (somewhere between the headlight and the front tire) with his feet back out of any potential path and the gun pointed at the driver.

This photo is just prior to the car moving forward and the first shot.

Servus said:

They have about 0.2 seconds to make a decision in a situation like that.

Click to expand...

Yup. And all he would have heard are tyres spinning for traction on ice, the vehicle jolt under acceleration, and someone refusing a lawful order.

At that point intent is irrelevant, his life is in danger and her vehicle is a weapon.

The 'she was terrified' argument falls apart when witness and law enforcement statements point to her being an instrumental/lead part in the ongoing attempts at blocking federal agents from undertaking their duties.

It's also come out she was part of training to resist police/federal agents.

This is not someone in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's someone in the position they placed themselves in seemingly thinking they're above the consequences.

It's sad, but it isn't surprising when people have painted ICE as Nazis. Yet no issue when Obama deported what, 3 million?

At the same time, the administration's rhetoric doesn't help either. She's not a domestic terrorist, just a fool that got caught up in politics and cultural Marxism.