ICE shooting in Minneapolis, police swarm scene

The Barbarian said:

It's not just "liberals" who hate lawless leaders.

Click to expand...

I'm seeing a lawless mayor of Minneapolis and a lawless governor of Minnesota.

The Barbarian said:

Except for one ICE agent who fired at a fleeing person. Maybe Trump will pardon him; that's what Trump usually does for criminals who do his bidding.

Click to expand...

She was not fleeing. She disobeyed lawful orders from a law enforcement officer and attempted to run over him. He ain't going to need a pardon.

Oompa Loompa said:

I see a very deranged white liberal woman who was brainwashed to do exactly what she was programmed to do. In this case, it was to martyr herself to play the role of George Floyd 2.0 before the midterms.

Click to expand...

Oh, brother.

Valletta said:

A person coming at a law enforcement officer with a weapon at close quarters is indeed justification to fire. That's what he is supposed to do. Shooting an unarmed woman who is not immediate threat to you or others at thirty feet away is murder. It is quite possible she was turning away, maybe she just meant to give him a glancing blow. He's not looking at the wheels, he sees the car coming at him. Law enforcement personnel are not mind readers, even if someone wants to just scare an officer, pointing a gun at close quarters means the officer is justified in shooting. I've posted it before, and Democrat leaders in particular decline to get the message to their base, they should be hammering it home to not make sudden moves in close quarters with a law enforcement officer. Just comply and later if you think your rights have been violated file a complaint and sue them. It seems to me that some of the leaders don't really care about lives lost.

Click to expand...

The statement that a person was coming at officer Jonathan Ross with a weapon at close quarters is an embellished version of a woman trying to get by a police officer in the way of her car. But I don't think it's murder either (I don't WANT to believe he stepped in front of the car to create an excuse to shoot her). I think Ross's incident months earlier where he was severely injured when being dragged by a car made him react rather than deliberate. That is, when he saw the other officer trying to open her door while she was about to drive away, it triggered a reenactment of an earlier trauma. For example, the video showed a time lapse that was so fast it doesn't support any deliberation before shooting.

• 1 Second: Renee Good turned the steering wheel to the right (away from Ross) just over one second before the first shot was fired.
• Total Firing Time: All three rounds were fired in under one second.
• The Shots:
  • Shot 1: Fired through the front windshield as the car began moving.
  • Shots 2 & 3: Fired through the driver's side window after the car's front bumper had already passed the officer's legs.

Jonathan Ross was a highly skilled professional. He would have known and trained others NOT to do what happened. I think he reacted without deliberation. There's a name for it; I just can't remember it at the moment.

1. The "Moving Vehicle" Restriction
The policy explicitly states that agents should not fire at a moving vehicle unless:

• The vehicle is being used as a weapon to cause death or serious injury, AND
• No other options (like moving out of the way) are available.
• Crucially: The policy warns that "disabling the driver" often makes the vehicle more dangerous because it becomes an unguided projectile. In the Ross case, critics note that after he shot her, the car careened uncontrolled into a residential area.

2. Prohibition on "Officer-Created Jeopardy"
DHS policy instructs agents not to place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.

• Policy Logic: If an officer intentionally steps in front of a car, they cannot use the "danger" they created as a justification to shoot.
• The Argument: Since Ross moved toward the front of the SUV as it began to move, he violated the DHS tactical guidelines meant to prevent exactly this kind of "unplanned" shooting.

3. The "Objectively Reasonable" Standard
The policy requires that force must be "proportional to the threat."

• Observation: Other agents at the scene approached the car with their hands out, not their guns drawn.
• The Argument: If other agents didn't see a lethal threat, Ross's decision to shoot was not "objectively reasonable" under DHS standards; it was a subjective, trauma-driven reaction.

Vambram said:

The vehicle very clearly hit that officer.

Click to expand...

Well, I haven't seen any video that confirms that. At the critical moment that other officer is blocking the view. However, In the Ross video I did see the lady turning her wheel away from where he's at, and the car drives past him down the road. If he was hit, it doesn't show it.

childeye 2 said:

Well, I haven't seen any video that confirms that. At the critical moment that other officer is blocking the view. However, In the Ross video I did see the lady turning her wheel away from where he's at, and the car drives past him down the road. If he was hit, it doesn't show it.

Click to expand...

I haven’t seen it either.

FaithT said:

I haven’t seen it either.

Click to expand...

This is what I saw. The view is blocked by the officer by the door trying to get her out as she tries to leave.

View attachment 375399

JosephZ said:
Many of the grievances our country's founders had against the king of England are the same grievances Americans have today with the Trump administration.

Click to expand...

Argument by assertion? Or do you have an example of Trump quartering troops in the homes of Minnesotans?

Here's a very detailed analysis of all the cell phone videos, synchronized: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/video/ice-shooting-renee-good-minneapolis-videos.html

childeye 2 said:

The statement that a person was coming at officer Jonathan Ross with a weapon at close quarters is an embellished version of a woman trying to get by a police officer in the way of her car. But I don't think it's murder either (I don't WANT to believe he stepped in front of the car to create an excuse to shoot her). I think Ross's incident months earlier where he was severely injured when being dragged by a car made him react rather than deliberate. That is, when he saw the other officer trying to open her door while she was about to drive away, it triggered a reenactment of an earlier trauma. For example, the video showed a time lapse that was so fast it doesn't support any deliberation before shooting.

• 1 Second: Renee Good turned the steering wheel to the right (away from Ross) just over one second before the first shot was fired.
• Total Firing Time: All three rounds were fired in under one second.
• The Shots:
  • Shot 1: Fired through the front windshield as the car began moving.
  • Shots 2 & 3: Fired through the driver's side window after the car's front bumper had already passed the officer's legs.

Jonathan Ross was a highly skilled professional. He would have known and trained others NOT to do what happened. I think he reacted without deliberation. There's a name for it; I just can't remember it at the moment.

1. The "Moving Vehicle" Restriction
The policy explicitly states that agents should not fire at a moving vehicle unless:

• The vehicle is being used as a weapon to cause death or serious injury, AND
• No other options (like moving out of the way) are available.
• Crucially: The policy warns that "disabling the driver" often makes the vehicle more dangerous because it becomes an unguided projectile. In the Ross case, critics note that after he shot her, the car careened uncontrolled into a residential area.

2. Prohibition on "Officer-Created Jeopardy"
DHS policy instructs agents not to place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.

• Policy Logic: If an officer intentionally steps in front of a car, they cannot use the "danger" they created as a justification to shoot.
• The Argument: Since Ross moved toward the front of the SUV as it began to move, he violated the DHS tactical guidelines meant to prevent exactly this kind of "unplanned" shooting.

3. The "Objectively Reasonable" Standard
The policy requires that force must be "proportional to the threat."

• Observation: Other agents at the scene approached the car with their hands out, not their guns drawn.
• The Argument: If other agents didn't see a lethal threat, Ross's decision to shoot was not "objectively reasonable" under DHS standards; it was a subjective, trauma-driven reaction.

Click to expand...

This is why so much of the discussion is trying to discredit the victim. People seem to be feeling that because she was doing something wrong it was OK to kill her. I think an investigation would show that she was trying to impede law enforcement. I also think she could be charged with reckless endangerment. But law enforcement isn't supposed to kill someone except under carefully defined circumstnaces. Most of the discussion here, and statements by the Trump administration, are not focused on defining those circumstances and seeing whether they applied.

While it's not true of this agent, ICE has many agents who were recently hired, and have shaky credentials. One concern is that they may be led to think that it's OK to kill someone who is doing thing they think are bad. You'd hope that after this incident, ICE would talk to all of its agents about the rules, and what went wrong in this case. Maybe that's happening in secret, but public statements don't suggest such a self-critical approach.

childeye 2 said:

The statement that a person was coming at officer Jonathan Ross with a weapon at close quarters is an embellished version of a woman trying to get by a police officer in the way of her car. But I don't think it's murder either (I don't WANT to believe he stepped in front of the car to create an excuse to shoot her). I think Ross's incident months earlier where he was severely injured when being dragged by a car made him react rather than deliberate. That is, when he saw the other officer trying to open her door while she was about to drive away, it triggered a reenactment of an earlier trauma. For example, the video showed a time lapse that was so fast it doesn't support any deliberation before shooting.

• 1 Second: Renee Good turned the steering wheel to the right (away from Ross) just over one second before the first shot was fired.
• Total Firing Time: All three rounds were fired in under one second.
• The Shots:
  • Shot 1: Fired through the front windshield as the car began moving.
  • Shots 2 & 3: Fired through the driver's side window after the car's front bumper had already passed the officer's legs.

Jonathan Ross was a highly skilled professional. He would have known and trained others NOT to do what happened. I think he reacted without deliberation. There's a name for it; I just can't remember it at the moment.

1. The "Moving Vehicle" Restriction
The policy explicitly states that agents should not fire at a moving vehicle unless:

• The vehicle is being used as a weapon to cause death or serious injury, AND
• No other options (like moving out of the way) are available.
• Crucially: The policy warns that "disabling the driver" often makes the vehicle more dangerous because it becomes an unguided projectile. In the Ross case, critics note that after he shot her, the car careened uncontrolled into a residential area.

2. Prohibition on "Officer-Created Jeopardy"
DHS policy instructs agents not to place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle.

• Policy Logic: If an officer intentionally steps in front of a car, they cannot use the "danger" they created as a justification to shoot.
• The Argument: Since Ross moved toward the front of the SUV as it began to move, he violated the DHS tactical guidelines meant to prevent exactly this kind of "unplanned" shooting.

3. The "Objectively Reasonable" Standard
The policy requires that force must be "proportional to the threat."

• Observation: Other agents at the scene approached the car with their hands out, not their guns drawn.
• The Argument: If other agents didn't see a lethal threat, Ross's decision to shoot was not "objectively reasonable" under DHS standards; it was a subjective, trauma-driven reaction.

Click to expand...

Now to our "legal experts."

Except for one ICE agent who fired at a fleeing person. Maybe Trump will pardon him; that's what Trump usually does for criminals who do his bidding.

Vambram said:

She was not fleeing.

Click to expand...

There's video. Your story won't stand up to the evidence.

Vambram said:

She disobeyed lawful orders from a law enforcement officer

Click to expand...

She was told to leave. Then just after another office screamed a profane order to get out of the car. At that point, if she heard him, she was in violation, although I doubt if any jury would find her guilty for obeying the first order. Even if she did hear him, that's not justification for killing her.

Vambram said:

He ain't going to need a pardon.

Click to expand...

Police have gone to jail for less than the way he killed her.

hedrick said:

Here's a very detailed analysis of all the cell phone videos, synchronized: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/video/ice-shooting-renee-good-minneapolis-videos.html

Click to expand...

Doesn't look so good for the killer, does it?

hedrick said:

This is why so much of the discussion is trying to discredit the victim. People seem to be feeling that because she was doing something wrong it was OK to kill her. I think an investigation would show that she was trying to impede law enforcement. I also think she could be charged with reckless endangerment. But law enforcement isn't supposed to kill someone except under carefully defined circumstnaces.

Click to expand...

Pretty much the way the law works. I'm guessing a Trump pardon somewhere down the line.

There's video. Americans aren't buying your story.

Oompa Loompa said:

I am American and I am buying the story.

Click to expand...

A set of recently released polls found Americans largely at odds with the Trump administration and its defense of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent who fatally shot Minneapolis woman Renee Good.

A Quinnipiac University poll found 53% of registered voters saying the shooting of Good was not justified, 35% saying it was justified and 12% with no opinion. Over 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 6 in 10 independents said the shooting was not justified, but over three-quarters of Republicans said it was.

Majority of Americans say ICE agent’s shooting of Good was unjustified and inappropriate; ICE making cities less safe

A Quinnipiac poll found 53% of voters said Good's shooting was not justified.

abcnews.go.com

But on Tuesday, Rogan, who has been increasingly critical of Trump’s mass deportation agenda in recent months, expressed concern over ICE’s activities in an episode featuring Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. He said that “most people” believe law enforcement should arrest criminals, but that many of the same people also believe ICE is “operating illegally.”

“I can also see the point of view of the people that say, ‘Yeah, but you don’t want militarized people in the streets just roaming around snatching people up, many of which turn out to actually be U.S. citizens that just don’t have their papers on them,’” Rogan said. “Are we really going to be the Gestapo? ‘Where’s your papers?’ Is that what we’ve come to?”

Joe Rogan criticizes ICE tactics: 'Are we really going to be the Gestapo?'

The influential podcaster, who endorsed Donald Trump in 2024, has been increasingly critical of the president’s mass deportation strategy.

www.nbcnews.com

We are witnessing the fracturing of MAGA. When Rogan compares Trump's tactics to the Gestapo, it's the beginning of the end.

You’ve Heard About Who ICE Is Recruiting. The Truth Is Far Worse. I’m the Proof.​

What happens when you do minimal screening before hiring agents, arming them, and sending them into the streets? We’re all finding out.​

At first glance, my résumé has enough to tantalize a recruiter for America’s Gestapo-in-waiting: I enlisted in the Army straight out of high school and deployed to Afghanistan twice with the 82nd Airborne Division. After I got out, I spent a few years doing civilian analyst work. With a carefully arranged, skills-based résumé—one which omitted my current occupation—I figured I could maybe get through an initial interview.

The catch, however, is that there’s only one “Laura Jedeed” with an internet presence, and it takes about five seconds of Googling to figure out how I feel about ICE, the Trump administration, and the country’s general right-wing project. My social media pops up immediately, usually with a preview of my latest posts condemning Trump’s unconstitutional, authoritarian power grab. Scroll down and you’ll find articles with titles like “What I Saw in LA Wasn’t an Insurrection; It Was a Police Riot” and “Inside Mike Johnson’s Ties to a Far-Right Movement to Gut the Constitution.” Keep going for long enough and you might even find my dossier on AntifaWatch, a right-wing website that lists alleged members of the supposed domestic terror organization. I am, to put it mildly, a less-than-ideal recruit.

In short, I figured—at least back then—that my military background would be enough to get me in the door for a good look around ICE’s application process, and then even the most cursory background check would get me shown that same door with great haste.

You’ve Heard About Who ICE Is Recruiting. The Truth Is Far Worse. I’m the Proof.

What happens when you do minimal screening before hiring agents, arming them, and sending them into the streets? We're all finding out.

slate.com

Guess what happened...

hedrick said:

This is why so much of the discussion is trying to discredit the victim. People seem to be feeling that because she was doing something wrong it was OK to kill her. I think an investigation would show that she was trying to impede law enforcement. I also think she could be charged with reckless endangerment. But law enforcement isn't supposed to kill someone except under carefully defined circumstnaces. Most of the discussion here, and statements by the Trump administration, are not focused on defining those circumstances and seeing whether they applied.

While it's not true of this agent, ICE has many agents who were recently hired, and have shaky credentials. One concern is that they may be led to think that it's OK to kill someone who is doing thing they think are bad. You'd hope that after this incident, ICE would talk to all of its agents about the rules, and what went wrong in this case. Maybe that's happening in secret, but public statements don't suggest such a self-critical approach.

Click to expand...

She committed at least three crimes before being shot. First, obstruction, which is the initial crime in which she was being lawfully arrested for. Note, when an officer states, "You are detained." You are not free to leave. Furthermore, when an officer states, "You are under arrest." Not only are you nolonger free to leave, an officer cannot "un-arrest" you. Meaning that they are now obligated to apprehend you and bring you to a jail to be booked and brought to a judge for a hearing.

Second, once under arrest, she resisted by trying to flee. Which is also a crime. Because the officers placed her under arrest, they were now obligated to apprehend her. That even mean reaching into her vehicle to grab the keys and physically remove her. Which the video footage shows.

The third crime was physical assault on an law enforcement officer. Although I do not believe her intention was to kill or injure anyone, the moment she made impact to the officer, she committed the third crime.

Again, looking at the footage, it is clear that she did not intend on harming anyone. But in her panic, she realized she was in some deep doo-doo and panicked. The officer was standing on in front of the driver's left bumper. Although she was trying to evade the officer by turning to the right, the turn radius of the vehicle made it impossible to continue forward without striking the officer. But she did not care. She only cared about fleeing arrest.

The question now remains whether or not the officer reasonably feared for his life. In which I believe he was. The reason being that in her state of panic, there is no evidence suggesting that she would not have been willing to kill the officer just to flee.

Statistically, when not interfering with law enforcement operation, the likelihood of being shot by an officer is 0%. However, when you goad any law enforcement officer for whatever reason, that risk is higher than 0%. Is she a victim? Yes. But a victim of all the liberals who incited and encouraged a permissive structure of resistance and violence against legitimate law enforcement operations. She was larping as a French liberation army, being part of the resistance to free Minneapolis from what she was told was the Nazi Gustapo, and she died for her cause. Which was the perfect opportunity that Democrats fabricated to distract from all the fraud and set a new narrative that is more beneficial to democrats in the coming elections. For lack of a better term, she was the "useful idiot" the Democratic Party desperately needed.

Danthemailman said:

Meet the Minnesotans killed by illegal immigrants that Walz, Dems never held news conferences or vigils for

Meet the Minnesotans killed by illegal immigrants that Walz, Dems never held news conferences or vigils for

Minnesota officials have held vigils for the woman killed during an ICE operation but remain silent on deaths caused by illegal immigrants, a Fox News review found.

www.foxnews.com

This speaks volumes!

Click to expand...

Yeah, why is ICE deporting a criminal to Ecuador when he is charged with vehicular homicide in Minnesota? Shouldn't criminals face prosecution where they committed a crime, instead of being freed in another country where they can kill other innocent people? This is the case of one person in your article.

Oompa Loompa said:

Now to our "legal experts."

Click to expand...

Okay what do your legal experts say?