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

Bradskii said:

I think you missed this:

'While I'm here, can you comment on Trump saying that the officer and others were hurt. In fact, Trump said he'd actually been run over: "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer...based on the attached clip'.

We've all seen the clips. Trump was lying. We all know that. Why do you think he lied yet again? Why is telling the truth so very difficult for him?'

Any answer?

Click to expand...

Either because he was lying, or someone sent him the story about that ICE officer getting dragged 100 yards and hospitalized a few months ago and his aging brain confused the two events.

...but that's sort of irrelevant. There's a specific reason why I've used video footage and images for most of my posts, and specifically avoided invoking Trump or anything he's said specifically because I don't view him as a reliable source.

Invoking Trump is just a way to steer the conversation toward the talking points of
"Trump bad, Trump liar, Trump likes ICE stuff...therefore ICE stuff bad and lies"

rjs330 said:

Yeah there are plenty of court rulings that indicate that if you don't comply with lawful commands and rhe officer decides to take you into custody you cannot just suddenly comply and everything is null and void. If you fail to give the officer your ID as required and then rhey decide to take you into custody, you cannot suddenly produce your ID and get off Scott free. The charges will stick.

Click to expand...

Correct, and the rationale I see others mentioning of "well, if it was going to be dangerous, then the officer should've just let them go and taken a pic of the license plate for later" is also silly.

The reason why officers are afforded the ability to carry lethal force on their hip, is specifically because the job involves danger.

If an officer observes a person breaking into a car, and said "meh, could be dangerous, I got a picture of the perp and the car for later...best thing for me to do is just let them go" would only be acceptable if it was multiple perps and would need backup.

RocksInMyHead said:

Your tinnitus? Seriously, the only sound I hear in that video at that point is the engine revving. Yes, the front left tire does break traction briefly, and in the video filmed from behind, you can hear a short scuffing noise, consistent with what a tire spinning a bit on a loose/wet/icy surface would make. There are no squealing tires.

Click to expand...

Really?

We're going down the rabbit hole of splitting hairs over "tire noise-based adjectives"?

RocksInMyHead said:

These statements are not conflicting. You do understand the sequence of events, right? He walks in front of the vehicle (twice), and then, by the time the vehicle accelerates and he shoots, he is at the side of the vehicle. The first part is relevant because the danger that he perceived himself to be in was of his own creation

Click to expand...

If you refer to the screenshot I provided earlier of the bullet hole in the windshield, the bullet would have had to have entered from a forward angle, not an oblique angle. So unless he was pulling off some sort of "Matrix-style" shot, the notion of "he was already out of harm's way when he fired" is a false one.

RocksInMyHead said:

She did not "jump out of the vehicle" in the course of his interaction. She was already out of the vehicle when he exited his vehicle at the start of his video footage. Also, she doesn't yell "Come at me." She says (doesn't yell, either) "You wanna come at us?" Not quite so aggressive as you're making it out to be. If that level of confrontational behavior is enough to put someone on a hair trigger for violence, then they should not have a gun. Period.

Click to expand...

Now we're splitting hairs over commonly understood figures of speech?

When I told my GF earlier "I'm going to jump in the shower really quick before we go to lunch", contrary to popular belief, I didn't actually "jump" in the shower. Likewise, when I hopped on a conference call last week, I wasn't actually hopping.

And the other example you're providing is another distinction without a difference.
If someone says (in an aggressive tone): "you wanna fight?!?" vs. "fight me", it conveys the same thing.

RocksInMyHead said:

Because there are always safety concerns about walking in front of a running vehicle with a driver at the wheel. You don't ignore safety rules just because you think you have the situation under control - complacency gets people killed.

Click to expand...

Safety rules being ignored may be an inaccurate description.

There are literally cops that stand in the middle of an intersection and direct 4-way traffic with cars whizzing past them in all directions... heck, there's construction workers who do that in cities.

There's cops standing around in lanes at OVI checkpoints as well.

What was different about this situation?

After all, she was calm, compliant, and totally not aggressive at all as people have claimed, so why would that cop have had anything more to fear than this cop?

wing2000 said:

I am only commenting on what I can observe in videos.



When he got out of his vehicle and made his first pass in front of the vehicle, the driver is visibily turning the steering wheel, positioning the wheel angle to back up. She then pauses as he comes around to her open window and she states --- dude, I'm not mad at you.



Why would he place himself in the potential path of the vehicle when he could observe she was preparing the vehicle to move?

Click to expand...

As I showed in the pics/videos (with timestamp references), the vehicle was stationary at the time he started walking around the front of it. The backup lights didn't come on until he was already "in-stride" part of the way across.

If a vehicle isn't moving so I start walking in front if it and they hit the gas when I'm already part way across, that can't be anticipated.

It's basically the same "honor system" that's the backbone of our crosswalk systems in cities.

I walk in front of running vehicles all the time when I'm in a city, it's a trust that people won't be idiots and try to hit the gas in a place where they're legally not supposed to hit the gas.

comana said:

Well, common sense for one, but to your statement, assuming he believes the driver non-confrontational, thus feels secure to walk in front , then why immediately switch to deadly force as she turns to move away? Even if he was hit or at risk for being hit, he should have been aware that he put himself in the path of this vehicle.

Click to expand...

I walk in front of running vehicles when I'm cities... the crosswalk system is based on the notion that most people won't hit the gas when they're not supposed to.

Bradskii said:

Irrelevant? Good grief...

Look, there are two aspects to this. The first is that we can see what happened with our own eyes. If you think that the situation justified the guy shooting the woman three times in the face, then that's on you.

Click to expand...

Hence the reason why I've used stills and video footage in my posts.

Referencing the number of shots taken is just an old sensationalism trick. (as if people would be any less upset if it had been one shot instead of three)

Bradskii said:

The guy you are meant to be able to trust. If he's lying (and it's hard to put an 'if' at the start of this sentence) and trying to convince you of something that OBVIOUSLY didn't happen, then you're in trouble whether you want to admit it or not. If he will lie about something that we all know is not true then he can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything. Period.

And don't give me bulldust about someone else being responsible for telling him about a prior event and him being 'confused'. He literally referenced the video we have all seen. He watched that video and then made something up.

Click to expand...

Trying to make this about Trump and what he said is intentional obfuscation.

Leveraging peoples' hatred of Trump to get them on whichever side is opposing him.

"The guy you are meant to be able to trust"... lol...seriously LOL.

There hasn't been a time in my lifetime where the word "politician" was associated with "trustworthy" (at least at the federal level)

Any position I've expressed in this thread is my own. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who doesn't agree with the hard-left position on absolutely everything has a default setting of "get all your information from Trump"

JosephZ said:

Under no circunstances should he have placed himself in front of a vehicle with the engine running and a driver behind the wheel. He didn't follow proper training or protocol and put himself in a dangerous situation.

Click to expand...

And under no circumstances should someone block the roadway so cops can't get through, refuse to obey lawful orders, and then try to flee the scene when being apprehended.

And yes, it was a hasty attempt to flee...had it been a calm "I'm just going to remove myself from the situation", she would've waited at least long enough for her wife to get back in the car. (not sure who else noticed that part).

Bradskii said:

No, it's a major part of the story that you seem intent to completely ignore. He's trying to justify his 'policy' on immigration up to the point where he will lie about a woman being shot to death. Something we've all seen, so on a scale of 1 to 10, how blatant is that lie? And does it need to be pointed out that he said absolutely nothing about the tragic loss of life?

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it when you mentioned it, I replied didn't I? I said it wasn't relevant to details of this shooting.

Had his lie been before the incident occurred, something to the effect of:
"I saw on Facebook that protestors have a plan to block roads and then run over ICE agents who try to get them out of the way"

...then perhaps one could dovetail one into the other.

However, a president lying about an event after the fact had no bearing on the event that's already happened.

Democrats have lied about the details (and extent) of problems to justify their policies. Does their lies and exaggeration negate the validity of the overall mission itself?

For example: If a democrat lies about the extent of the issues of "people dying in waiting rooms because they can't get health care" or "police shooting unarmed black men", does that mean that the entire mission of healthcare reform or criminal justice reform is now null and void and has zero basis for existing?

comana said:

Don’t be ridiculous. This is not comparable to a controlled intersection crosswalk.

Click to expand...

No it's worse, when a cop orders you to get out of the vehicle (after you've ignored several other lawful commands, and tested their patience for an extended period of time), we're delving into felony territory, where the act of running a redlight and blowing a stop sign is a misdemeanor in most cases.

A police officer telling you "okay, you had your chance before, time for talk is over, get out of the vehicle", that's a very controlled situation (or at least it should be)

Bradskii said:

But it will allow you to determine whether you can trust him about anything he tells you. And have you made that determination?

Click to expand...

I've noted before (several times) that I didn't vote for him any of the 3 times he's been on the ballot, correct?

This is a determination I made back in 2015, which is why I voted for Gary Johnson, then Biden (though I regret that decision), then opted to leave it blank.

The fact that I don't find him trustworthy doesn't mean I have to blindly take the side of anyone who claims to be opposed to him on every single issue.

It's possible for two competing entities to be stupid simultaneously...

JosephZ said:

This situation was the opposite. It wasn't a dangerous situation and the agent already had the license plate number. It would have been OK to let them drive off and they could have been dealt with later.

Click to expand...

Couldn't the same be said of almost any law enforcement interaction?

"Hey, this guy is robbing a bank, and I have a gun and the authority to stop him...but nah, that could be dangerous, we got his picture on the security camera, we'll deal with it later" would represent a major breakdown in the system.

JosephZ said:

I provided screenshots that were synchronized with the sounds of the gunshots. His feet were already to the left of the vehicle when the first shot was fired.

Click to expand...

How would you explain the bullet hole pattern on the windshield?

Sound in video can be slightly delayed, it'll be interesting to see what a forensic analysis turns up.



Bullets entering from an oblique angle would leave an elliptical hole with more cracking one side than the other, that bullet hole seems to indicate a straight-on shot (if it hit the driver, which it did)... so at least one of the shots occurred when he was in the front of the vehicle.

The location of the hole coming in from a side angle wouldn't have hit the driver i wouldn't think (but I'm not a forensics expert), it would have gone out the back passenger side window.

JosephZ said:

This is true, and the woman was in the wrong. Those actions don't warrant a death sentence, though.

Click to expand...

...sorry, but that's become the excuse for every case where police force is used. (lethal and non-lethal)

If I was shoplifting, and then trying to run away and a cop chased and tackled me, one could just as easily say "stealing a $50 item doesn't warrant getting tackled and getting your shoulder dislocated and having to do 6 months of physical therapy"

Saying "crime ABC doesn't warrant outcome XYZ" is a gross simplification.



How it comes across (and this isn't mean as a personal attack, just in general), is that "anarchy and lawlessness is okay, so long as it's in the name of something I see as good and noble")

I shared the screenshot earlier in the thread of my post pertaining to Ashli Babbitt situation in 2021 showing I've been consistent on this. "On paper" sure, one could say "Trespassing and disorderly conduct shouldn't warrant a death sentence". The real world is more complicated.

What's the expectation here? Our law enforcement officers should only be allowed to shout toothless orders at people that they can easily ignore when convenient, and then let them go with a "gee golly shucks, I wouldn't want to escalate anything"?

Keeping in mind, taking a pic of the license plate and giving it over to local PD wouldn't have accomplished anything in this case, the Mayor and City Council in Minneapolis have given their city PD strict orders not to collaborate with ICE.