New documents shed light on Renee Good’s ties to ICE monitoring efforts in Minneapolis

ThatRobGuy said:

From what I've read there wasn't anyone else in the car.

She had dropped her six year old (from her second husband) off at school earlier in the day.

And from what it sounds like, her other two Children 12 & 15 are the custody of their father (her first husband) in a different state.
She had recently moved to Minneapolis with her wife and 6-year-old son, whom she had with her second husband, according to news reports

Click to expand...

Looks like her wife was with her, but had stepped out to talk to the officers at the time of the shooting.

ThatRobGuy said:

Which police department would have followed up on it?

Minneapolis PD had already been given orders not to collaborate with or assist ICE through a separation provision that was passed by their city council and signed by Jacob Frey. Are you suggesting that Minnesota State Police would've been responsive in addressing this one given who the head of that executive branch is?

Click to expand...

Obstructing traffic is a police matter correct?
If following up on a reported traffic violation supporting ICE?

Or if the charge is interfering with an ICE operation (or something along those lines), ICE could have paid a visit to her later.

Or, they could have simply backed up and gone a different street.
Or, they could have proceeded and approached the vehicle in a non-threatening manner, and ask her to move her vehicle.

They had choices. Why did they chose to be confrontational and made no attempt to de-escalate.

ICE are trained not to walk in front of vehicles. If the ICE officer was doing his job right. Nobody would have been killed. If Trump would stop playing these games, with Blue States. Then we wouldn't have to protect our rights. Why are we/ Blue States putting money in the Government. If we get nothing out of it?

com7fy8 said:

That would mean that while we are viewing the video, with an ICE agent taking one pop through her window, there's supposed to be a kid in the back seat. Are"you" telling me he took that shot, knowing a kid was in the car? Or, was he that incompetent an observer so he did not see the kid???? And then the car moves off and crashes into another car. And there is no obvious action to get a kid right out of the car, during that film, and have the child checked by emergency medical responders. Plus, the shot woman's partner does not obviously indicate a kid needs to be rescued; I think she would have tried to get custody of the child, right away.

So . . . "if it doesn't fit, you must acquit" comes to mind. Is there any mention of ICE agents retrieving a kid from the back seat, when they get to the crashed car?? If a kid was there, I think the anti-ICE people would be all over that, i.e-e-e-e-e, how a trained officer shot into a car with a kid in it. So, in case "somebody" is trying to make her look bad by having a kid that she did not have there . . . "somebody" could wind up giving the ICE officer a bad name . . . not doing a very good job of lying.

But I am told a tactical liar expects any new lie to replace an older one, in the minds of incompetents. So, the lie can be the officer should have shot into the car. Then days later claim she had a kid with her, so she gets a bad name, and just ignore how he should *not* have shot with a kid in there. But count on people to just forget the claim that the officer was supposed to shoot into the car. And, days later when it is clarified she had no kid with her . . . "enough" people will only remember what they were told earlier. Or - the "tactical" liar just forgets the earlier lies that contradict the later ones.

Click to expand...

I was not there so i am not telling anybody what happened. Not sure why you do not understand that.

rjs330 said:

That's being debated at this time. It actually could have been said by another officer. I don't think we have an answer to that. But even if he did, its a legitimate verbal response to someone who just scared the crap out of you and hit you with their car.

Click to expand...

Yes better to withold judgement sometimes. I do hope it is thouroughly investigated in an objective way. Part of the problem is that the Trump administration is not trusted and yes they too should have been more careful in drawing conclusions as well.

The group Renee belonged to encouraged women to make life hard for ICE agents. To stop and if necessary block them from doing their job. They were a community group with no safety procols, no training in not how to put themseves in danger. An unreal and politically motivated group.

Imagine a group doing the same to police officers.

So it stands to reason that sooner or later after telling people to block law enforcement and nt be clear about what the line is between legal and illegal protesting. That someone was going to cross that line and get killed.

In fact they were already crossing the line and the officers had ignored this. This was already illegal activity when they were blocking the law all day and everyday they were out there. When you breach the law and defy law enforcement you are bound to get in trouble.

stevevw said:

The group Renee belonged to encouraged women to make life hard for ICE agents. To stop and if necessary block them from doing their job. They were a community group with no safety procols, no training in not how to put themseves in danger. An unreal and politically motivated group.

Imagine a group doing the same to police officers.

So it stands to reason that sooner or later after telling people to block law enforcement and nt be clear about what the line is between legal and illegal protesting. That someone was going to cross that line and get killed.

In fact they were already crossing the line and the officers had ignored this. This was already illegal activity when they were blocking the law all day and everyday they were out there. When you breach the law and defy law enforcement you are bound to get in trouble.

Click to expand...

To get in trouble shouldn't include getting shot.

Perhaps an obstruction charge would be reasonable to get tested in court.

Stopped_lurking said:

To get in trouble shouldn't include getting shot.

Click to expand...

It will when you cross the line and try to use your car as a weapon. Look at all the attempts by people to run down officers. Look at the video, they were antagonising the officers all day. They have been doing this all the time. That is their aim and they went too far.

When your aim is to block law enforcement officers then you run the risk of stepping over the line between lawful and unlawful protests. You are already treading a fine line that can easily be crossed. Unfortunately this was one of those occassions.

But if these groups did not engage in such unlawful behaviour in the first place then they would never be in that position to cross that line. They were playing with fire and when you play with fire sometimes someone gets hurt.

Stopped_lurking said:

Perhaps an obstruction charge would be reasonable to get tested in court.

Click to expand...

But it was not just obstruction. It was the use of a car as a weapon. When Good was sitting in the middle of the road blocking the traffic that was illegal and an obstruction. If she then abided and then went on her way then she may have even got off any charges. As the officers were already overlooking their illegal activity.

But she did not. They were antagonising and stirring up trouble. Being agitators and not complying. That alone escalated the situation. We have seen how some are not complying and then agitating and escalating the situation.

We know that anyone who does that to a police officer is usually arrested and sometimes if they resist are put on the ground and handcuffed. You can't agitate or provoke or block law enforcement officers doing their legal jobs.

Its actually insanity. Its asking for trouble. Its making yourself a criminal in that your not only breaking the law. But your actually agitating and blocking an officer going about the duty in arresting the criminals and applying the law.

Its a double wrong and certainly a crazy thing to do in that these protestors are just everyday people and not like the criminals. But are willing to become one in protecting them. The very people who are harming their community.

It disrespects Rule of law and undermines law and order. And that is exactly what we are now seeing with crazy people smashing ICE vehicles,and stealing guns and then celebrating. Its also encouraging others to do the same.

stevevw said:

It will when you cross the line and try to use your car as a weapon. Look at all the attempts by people to run down officers. Look at the video, they were antagonising the officers all day. They have been doing this all the time. That is their aim and they went too far.

When your aim is to block law enforcement officers then you run the risk of stepping over the line between lawful and unlawful protests. You are already treading a fine line that can easily be crossed. Unfortunately this was one of those occassions.

But if these groups did not engage in such unlawful behaviour in the first place then they would never be in that position to cross that line. They were playing with fire and when you play with fire sometimes someone gets hurt.

But it was not just obstruction. It was the use of a car as a weapon. When Good was sitting in the middle of the road blocking the traffice that was illegal and an obstruction. If she then abided and then went on her way then she may have even got off any charges. As the officers were already overlooking their illegal activity.

But she did not. They were antagonising and stirring up trouble. Being agitators and not complying. That alone escalated the situation. We have seen how some are not complying and then agitating and escalating the situation.

We know that anyone who does that to a police officer is usually arrested and sometimes if they resist are put on the ground and handcuffed. You can't agitate or provoke or block law enforcement officers doing their legal jobs.

Its actually insanity. Its asking for trouble. Its making yourself a criminal in that your not only breaking the law. But your actually agitating and blocking an officer going about the duty in arresting the criminals and applying the law.

Its a double wrong and certainly a crazy thing to do in that these people are not like the criminals. But are willing to become one in protecting them. The very people who are harming their community. It disrespects Rule of law and undermines law and order. And that is exactly what we are now seeing with crazy people smashing ICE vehicles,and stealing guns and then celebrating.

Click to expand...

I've seen the videos, it doesn't seem intentional. If one believes one is about to get hit by a car, the best course of action is to get out of the way.

Stopped_lurking said:

I've seen the videos, it doesn't seem intentional. If one believes one is about to get hit by a car, the best course of action is to get out of the way.

Click to expand...

I think its wrong that all these back seat lawyers are making all these claims about what a person in such a situation should do or not do. More evidence has come out. The officer was injured with internal bleeding. So it wasn't a tap or that he had time to jump out of the way. Or that he wanted to get hit and injured.

You hear actual leaders like Frey coming out and making claims of murder. That it was just a light bump like from a fridge door opening. What an idiot. He is suppose to be neutral and by the facts. But he is stiring up people to commit more violence. Its almost insurrection I think.

But I think we have to wait until all the facts come out and whether it becomes a legal issue. As the truth can only be determined by the legal system and not vigilantes or loungroom courts. Which some people seem to want to ignore. Which is also contributing to the problem.

stevevw said:

I think its wrong that all these back seat lawers are making all these claims about what a person in such a situation should do or not do. More evidence has come out. The officer was injured with internal bleeding. So it wasn't a tap or that he had time to jump out of the way.

Click to expand...

I know, it doesn't change what I saw in the clips. How does that negate that he could jumped out of the way?

stevevw said:

Or that he wanted to get hit and injured.

Click to expand...

Who has said that?

stevevw said:

You hear actual leaders like Frey coming out and making claims of murder. What an idiot. He is suppose to be neutral and by the facts. But he is stiring up people to commit more violence. Its almost insurrection I think.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that Frey intends to instigate violence? Which court decided that?

How is you calling it a "almost insurrection" not stirring the pot?

stevevw said:

But I think we have to wait until all the facts come out and whether it becomes a legal issue. As the truth can only be determined by the legal system and not vigilantes or loungroom courts. Which some people seem to want to ignore. Which is also contributing to the problem.

Click to expand...

Legal culpability is determined in court, not truth (hopefully there is a large overlap though).

You just wrote this:

stevevw said:

It was the use of a car as a weapon.

Click to expand...

Which court determined that?

stevevw said:

I think its wrong that all these back seat lawyers are making all these claims about what a person in such a situation should do or not do. More evidence has come out.

Click to expand...

More evidence? More claims have come out by a federal government that lied within hours of the incident.
For now, the only evidence we have are videos. And I have zero confidence in any investigation carried out by Trump's FBI. They are preventing state officials from even accessing the information gathered in their investigation. Think about that for a minute. A citizen is killed and the state is excluded from the federal government's investigation?

stevevw said:

But I think we have to wait until all the facts come out and whether it becomes a legal issue. As the truth can only be determined by the legal system and not vigilantes or loungroom courts. Which some people seem to want to ignore. Which is also contributing to the problem.

Click to expand...

There most certainly will be a lawsuite. Even if the Feds refuse to conduct an obective investigation and bring any charges, the ICE officer is certainly facing a civil awsuit from Good's family.

Mr. Romanucci [Good family's attorney] said his office had opened a civil investigation into the shooting. He and another lawyer sent federal officials a letter asking them to preserve potential evidence.

The letter said that the family anticipated “legal action” against the United States and the agent who fired the shots, and it listed excessive force and negligence as potential claims.