• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

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

MrMoe

Part-Time Breatharian
Sep 13, 2011
6,485
3,872
Moe's Tavern
✟206,690.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Wrong. If you watch the video taken from the rear Renee Good (she has a name) backs up her car after this point. I was correcting your false statement.

Exactly. She backed up. Meaning at one point the was over the centre line which is the middle of the road, just like the video shows.

A traffic offence does not justify cold blooded murder.

No court has reached any verdict yet, so there no way you could know that.

The position of Good's car when approached by ICE agents is what is relevant.

Also before that too.

No cars were blocked from driving down the road.

Doesn’t matter, it’s still a violation to park on the road the way she did.

I was correcting your false statement about multiple horns sounding

Again you’re arguing a moot point. The fact that there is even one car honking their horn multiple times shows there .

That that is where the horn is sounding about something else.

How do you know it was sounding at something else?


So it's ok for ICE to go around shooting people then since police good practice doesn't apply to them.

Non sequitur. I never said it was okay for ICE to go around shooting people, but in some cases it is justified. We’ll see what the investigation concludes.

Good had also been told to drive away.

Something could have happened in between the time she was told that and when the order changed to her being told to get out of the car. She was told multiple times to get out of the car so it is obvious that she should have complied with the current command. So you can’t use this an as excuse for her driving away.

She hadn't committed any immigration offences.

I never claimed that. She did commit a traffic offence and possibly other offences we haven’t seen.

They tried to violently open Good's car door. Her side window was open so they could speak to her. It looked like they intended to drag her out of her car.

Strange, I saw the officer calmly reach for the door. I so no violence in his actions at all.

It may have looked that way to you but that doesn’t prove that is what they wanted to do.

This is invention by you based on nothing.

Adrenaline isn’t my invention, it’s a real chemical in the body that can make people appear fine for a while after being injured.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,839
2,157
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟347,222.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
My guess is she thought that they had made themselves a big enough nuisance to get a visit at a later date. They might be hit with an obstruction charge or something else. But this is me speculating, however from the text itself it is clear that Rebecca thought ICE would be the ones coming to talk to them later. Not the other way around. You have to concoct an overarching story to get your narrative to even be possible (whilst going against a plain reading of the text), as you do below.
Why is my spectulating a concoction and yours is not.

Why can't it also be reasonable to think that Rebecca could still think the ICE were coming to them later. Except not at home but while protesting later.
Why would you assume that? There is nothing in the text itself that supports that at all.
There is also nothing in the text that suggests she meant the ICE officers were going to visit them because they were in trouble or would be charged.

They were already breaching the law and were not being charged. The officers were overlooking any charges and have done this often. So if you can assume your interpretation then others can likewise assume theirs. Neither have any text that supports them.\

If anything I think there is some support that "later" meant after lunch. After Rebecca says their plates will be the same when they see them later. She then says From your link
“You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy.

I assume she is telling them to go away and leave them alone at the time. Go away and come back later. Cool down big boy and take time out.

But as we keep saying this is spectulating which is now reaching a point where it is not worth discussing anymore until more info comes out. Its just going to be one interpretation or another.
 
Upvote 0

Stopped_lurking

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
976
407
Kristianstad
✟30,436.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Why is my spectulating a concoction and yours is not.
Because my interpretation is supported by the plain text. That she thought ICE would come and talk to them later. I'm perfectly fine with any place or any time where ICE comes and talk to them, not them going to talk with ICE. This belies that they planned to seek out ICE later.
Why can't it also be reasonable to think that Rebecca could still think the ICE were coming to them later. Except not at home but while protesting later.
Because that is an extra assumption, that they will be protesting later. She could have meant at home or at work or even at another protest.
There is also nothing in the text that suggests she meant the ICE officers were going to visit them because they were in trouble or would be charged.
My interpretation does not rely on more than it is ICE coming to them to talk later instead of them coming to ICE.
They were already breaching the law and were not being charged. The officers were overlooking any charges and have done this often. So if you can assume your interpretation then others can likewise assume theirs. Neither have any text that supports them.\
Perhaps charges can be brought after the fact, perhaps she suspected that they would get a stern talking-to? Remember how this started, you were making claims not I. You presented your interpretation as true already in post #185. You tried to support it with some questionable quoting. I questioned that.
Nor were a number of of factors that did not come out at first and came out later. Some very important. Like the words from Renees partner. Like that the couple were agitating officers earlier and planned to do the same later that day.
This is not supported by a plain reading of the text. There is nothing in the text talking about earlier or later actions from Renee and her wife.

If anything I think there is some support that "later" meant after lunch. After Rebecca says their plates will be the same when they see them later. She then says From your link
“You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy.
How does this imply that they will see them after lunch at all? There is nothing in those word that says they will see them after lunch.
I assume she is telling them to go away and leave them alone at the time. Go away and come back later. Cool down big boy and take time out.
Why? There is no statement of intent that they will see them after lunch in that text. It does not imply that they will be there after an eventual lunch.
But as we keep saying this is spectulating which is now reaching a point where it is not worth discussing anymore until more info comes out. Its just going to be one interpretation or another.
As I said, you tried to present it as much more than your interpretation initially, you presented it as if it was true.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,839
2,157
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟347,222.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Because my interpretation is supported by the plain text. That she thought ICE would come and talk to them later. I'm perfectly fine with any place or any time where ICE comes and talk to them, not them going to talk with ICE. This belies that they planned to seek out ICE later.

Because that is an extra assumption, that they will be protesting later. She could have meant at home or at work or even at another protest.

My interpretation does not rely on more than it is ICE coming to them to talk later instead of them coming to ICE.

Perhaps charges can be brought after the fact, perhaps she suspected that they would get a stern talking-to? Remember how this started, you were making claims not I. You presented your interpretation as true already in post #185. You tried to support it with some questionable quoting. I questioned that.

This is not supported by a plain reading of the text. There is nothing in the text talking about earlier or later actions from Renee and her wife.


How does this imply that they will see them after lunch at all? There is nothing in those word that says they will see them after lunch.

Why? There is no statement of intent that they will see them after lunch in that text. It does not imply that they will be there after an eventual lunch.

As I said, you tried to present it as much more than your interpretation initially, you presented it as if it was true.
Like I said I don't think theres anything else we can say. Its going back and forth with spectulation. We will have to wait for more info.
 
Upvote 0

Stopped_lurking

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
976
407
Kristianstad
✟30,436.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Like I said I don't think theres anything else we can say. Its going back and forth with spectulation. We will have to wait for more info.
Ok, I think I have showed that your initial statement in post #185 wasn't supported by the facts at hand when you made it. If anyone has read our exchange they will come to their own conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

Kokavkrystallos

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2024
1,145
646
Farmington
✟56,886.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Widowed
Nobody was trying to run him over. If she was she had ample opportunity when he was more directly in front of the car. Does every person almost hit by a car have the same right to shoot the driver?
If you watch the video, she is looking to the side at the other ICE officer, when he is directly in front. Then she looks directly at him while that other woman yells "drive " and she hits the gas while he's still in front.
That said, this is my take on the whole situation, compiled over a few days:

Praying in accordance with God's will here.
I had to think and pray about this overnight rather than just post regarding the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis. It's sad all the way around on many levels. Sometimes I can be a John the Baptist, and I've posted the following where Woke anti Christians have been screaming:
"Her "wife." There is no such thing as a woman having a wife. Nor a man having a husband. It is sin, and an abomination.
The wages of sin is death.
Sad those kids lost their mother, but what kind of example to a little child is a woman engaged in a lustful ungodly relationship?
It is hellish! Woe unto those who offend a little child.
God is our Creator, and made the way wherein we should walk, and live. Man chooses to live contrary. You reap what you sow.
Im not saying the shooting was justified. I dont know. Everything happens so quickly. (I've had military training and other kinds of training, and can tell you, things can happen so fast, your reaction time is like 0, and from your perception it may be life or death. I've seen the front view video. The ICE agent was struck by her vehicle, however, in my opinion he shouldn't have placed himself in a vulnerable position so close, but gone wide, and cleared himself from the potential path.)
But living in sin makes you vulnerable to an untimely demise.
"Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time." - Ecclesiastes 7:17
Prayers for all involved.
And praying that people repent, and turn to the LORD Jesus Christ for forgiveness and salvation, confessing your sins, and forsaking all wickedness.
There is no other way to be saved and inherit eternal life.
And if Renee wasnt doing something that warranted the shooting, it just shows how quickly things can happen, and then you are facing the judgment of an Almighty and holy God.
And she certainly wasn't completely innocent! (She was parked across a roadway, did not comply with an order, and argued with officers, placing herself in danger. People need to realize that engaging in any way in a public protest makes you vulnerable to danger, either from the law enforcement, or from fellow protesters)

Turn to Jesus, for today is the day of salvation.
--------
I'm also going to share this from Hosea 10:10-14, which speaks to such situations:
"It is in my desire that I should chastise them; and the people shall be gathered against them, when they shall bind themselves in their two furrows.
And Ephraim is as an heifer that is taught, and loveth to tread out the corn; but I passed over upon her fair neck: I will make Ephraim to ride; Judah shall plow, and Jacob shall break his clods.
Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.
Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.
Therefore shall a tumult arise among thy people, and all thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Betharbel in the day of battle: the mother was dashed in pieces upon her children."

People plow wickedness, then justify wickedness, believing lies, trusting in themselves, and a tumult arises among the people. People get hurt, and sometimes killed in such situations. It's truly sad, but we live in a fallen world.

I share the following 2 scriptures often, especially regarding war and violence.
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. " - Hebrews 12:14
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. " - Matthew 5:9

Pray for those cities, as they were ground zero in 2020 also. Pray for all leaders, and the nation. Pray for the children especially.
"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, THY WILL BE DONE, on earth as it is in heaven."
---------

Having learned more about Renee Good, it appears she was a professing Christian, who had gone to youth camps, and even missionary trips to Ireland when she was younger.
Her x husband described her a devoted Christian.
The woman she was in an unlawful union with, who wrongfully uses the title of "her wife" says this:
"Renee lived by the belief that "there is kindness in the world and we need to do everything we can to find it where it resides and nurture it where it needs to grow," Becca wrote, pointing to her late wife's Christian beliefs, which she said taught the "truth" that "we are here to love each other, care for each other, and keep each other safe and whole."

Sadly, these are progressive Christian beliefs, not Bible. The first part is opposite of what our calling is. There is SIN in the world, and Jesus came to seek and to save that which is lost. Jesus said "love thy neighbor as yourself, " implying that YOU bring kindness to others.
While the gospel does call us to love one another, it also teaches the ugliness of sin, and to avoid sinful practices. Same sex intimacy is sinful. No wiggle room. Man and woman are to be married. ANYTHING outside that is sin . And teaching a 6 year old child that's OK by your example, and your words, under the guise of "love " is wicked and offensive.

People like to point out John 8, that Jesus said, "he that is without sin among you, cast the first stone. " But don't stop there, because after Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery, "neither do I condemn you," He then says, "GO, AND SIN NO MORE."
And that's also a situation, where if the woman was caught in the very act (John 8:4), where is the man? They only accused one party in a 2 party sin. The Pharisees obviously knew something they weren't saying, and Jesus was having none of their nonsense.
But at the end of all this, "Go and sin no more."

Now I've wondered and prayed in this situation, and conclude, either Renee Good never really knew Christ, followed another gospel, and another Jesus, was accursed, and went to hell. (Galatians 1:6-9, Matthew 7:21-23). That's a possibility.

But there is also THIS possibility, which I really hope is the case. That she was saved. She was called and chosen. She was in marriages to men, and had children. I don't know the circumstances of her divorce from her first husband, but her last husband died.
Then she went and joined herself with a woman in an unlawful union. I know it was ruled legal by US courts in 2015, but it is unlawful in God's sight. And we ought to obey God rather than man.

So in this scenario God gave her a couple years to repent, but instead she continued in a sinful relationship, and became an agitator in public. God said enough, and took her home.
Acts 5. Ananias & Sapphira died on the spot when they lied. And 1 Corinthians 11:29-32 speaks of believers who were sick, and some who even died, because the took the Lord's Supper unworthily.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

Finally, 1 Corinthians 3:13-17,
"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
30,172
9,781
66
✟468,729.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
What was she referring to when she said "It will be the same plate when you come talk to us later.” What made Rebecca think that the ICE officers were coming to talk to them later. Or that they would encounter the ICE officers later.
Steve, I think you guys are arguing over minutia here. Neither one of you know what she meant. The exact wording of "you come" indicate she was saying ICE would come to them. We don't what she thought about how or why ICE would come to them. That could have several different meanings.

But honestly it is irrelevant to the reason she was shot.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
17,685
4,560
Louisville, Ky
✟1,084,088.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Ice officers that were there say she was obstructing their operation.
She was there as a protester and SCOTUS has affirmed that protesting and filming is protected by the Constitution. She was about a hundred yards away from the ICE operation which is well outside any limits that courts have allowed. Which means that she wasn't obstructing ICE.

She was annoying ICE agents. Nothing illegal about that.
Their vehicles weren’t parked illegally like Renee Good’s was. Also you weren’t there so you there’s no way you could know that.
ICE was legally blocking traffic. Good was illegally blocking part of the roadway, which is a traffic violation, only. Also, you have heard of video evidence, haven't you?
But it does happen. This was one of those one of those instances.
Yes it does and many of those end with officers losing their jobs or being punished for violating civil rights.
The videos that I've seen of bad stops don’t show the officer had any violations on their record.
You're not watching many. I see lots. I also see lots of stupid motorists not understanding their actual rights.
Which could have happened in this instance since we only have video of what happed minutes before the shooting.
Yeah, that smiling face saying, "I'm not mad at you" scared those poor ICE agents.
I neither heard or saw anything threatening manner from the officers.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. An officer rushing up screaming "Get out of the car" and trying to, illegally, open their door, isn't threatening. LOL
What I heard was stern commands to get out of the car which police officers also do.
It is illegal for police to reach into a vehicle, until the driver has been given the chance to obey a lawful order, which had not been established. These cases are usually thrown out of court with all charges dropped because police violated the driver's rights.
 
Upvote 0

Vanellus

Newbie
Sep 15, 2014
1,894
687
✟177,264.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Exactly. She backed up. Meaning at one point the was over the centre line which is the middle of the road, just like the video shows.

No court has reached any verdict yet, so there no way you could know that.

Also before that too.

Doesn’t matter, it’s still a violation to park on the road the way she did.

Again you’re arguing a moot point. The fact that there is even one car honking their horn multiple times shows there .

How do you know it was sounding at something else?

Non sequitur. I never said it was okay for ICE to go around shooting people, but in some cases it is justified. We’ll see what the investigation concludes.

Something could have happened in between the time she was told that and when the order changed to her being told to get out of the car. She was told multiple times to get out of the car so it is obvious that she should have complied with the current command. So you can’t use this an as excuse for her driving away.

I never claimed that. She did commit a traffic offence and possibly other offences we haven’t seen.

Strange, I saw the officer calmly reach for the door. I so no violence in his actions at all.

It may have looked that way to you but that doesn’t prove that is what they wanted to do.

Adrenaline isn’t my invention, it’s a real chemical in the body that can make people appear fine for a while after being injured.
Your reasoning that because Good backed up she must have been over the middle of the road is faulty. It's like saying 2>1 so 2>3. It's nonsense. If Renee Good had been parked in the middle of the road, as claimed, the middle of the car would have been over the middle of the road for a period of time long enough to be deemed "parked". No video shows that.

Discussion about parking violations are irrelevant since it is clearly wrong to shoot someone in the head from short range for a parking violation. The same goes for horns and/or whistles. ICE are not traffic police and there was no reason for Good to obey their instruction to get out of the car as she had not broken any immigration laws. ICE were exceeding their jurisdiction in this case. And again not getting out of the car is no justification for being shot in the head from close range though an open window. The masked ICE officer (police do not wear masks) who approaches the car from the left tries to yank the door open even though the window is down. It is apparent he wanted to drag Renee Good out of the car and we know how violent some ICE officers have behaved.

Your "invention" is to invent the idea that the killer Ross was only able to walk about normally because of adrenaline. If what BPPLEE says is right about hospitals being forbidden from divulging medical information then the story about "internal bleeding" must be doubted: it could clearly be politically motivated.

I also find Ross's behaviour odd. He shoots Renee Good in the head at short range then casually strolls over to check her condition after the car crashes. Does he think she'll be ok - maybe have a bit of a headache? Good's wife runs over: she knows how serious this is. Has he been affected by his Iraq war experience? He was a machine gunner so may have become inured to the seriousness of shooting people? After all being in the US army killing other people comes with the job. Had he been goaded by Renee Good's wife and blew a short fuse? I'm posing questions not making statements but these are the kinds of questions that would be asked in a law court. Certainly he should be immediately relieved of duty pending an investigation, be ordered to hand in his gun and any other weapons he has. Whatever the outcome I sincerely hope he never acts as an armed security officer in any capacity ever again.

The key question is did Renee Good do anything that deserved being shot in the head. The self defence argument has been refuted. Note that the grainy video taken from the right has been speeded up and manipulated. It is not reliable evidence. This argument that the first shot was ok is also fallacious since he fired three shots not one shot, and the last two were fired into the vehicle from the side when there was clearly going to be no impact on him from the vehicle. Good cannot be held responsible for her driving after she has been shot.

This video clarifies the issues:
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,621
8,288
62
Montgomery
✟292,220.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your reasoning that because Good backed up she must have been over the middle of the road is faulty. It's like saying 2>1 so 2>3. It's nonsense. If Renee Good had been parked in the middle of the road, as claimed, the middle of the car would have been over the middle of the road for a period of time long enough to be deemed "parked". No video shows that.

Discussion about parking violations are irrelevant since it is clearly wrong to shoot someone in the head from short range for a parking violation. The same goes for horns and/or whistles. ICE are not traffic police and there was no reason for Good to obey their instruction to get out of the car as she had not broken any immigration laws. ICE were exceeding their jurisdiction in this case. And again not getting out of the car is no justification for being shot in the head from close range though an open window. The masked ICE officer (police do not wear masks) who approaches the car from the left tries to yank the door open even though the window is down. It is apparent he wanted to drag Renee Good out of the car and we know how violent some ICE officers have behaved.

Your "invention" is to invent the idea that the killer Ross was only able to walk about normally because of adrenaline. If what BPPLEE says is right about hospitals being forbidden from divulging medical information then the story about "internal bleeding" must be doubted: it could clearly be politically motivated.

I also find Ross's behaviour odd. He shoots Renee Good in the head at short range then casually strolls over to check her condition after the car crashes. Does he think she'll be ok - maybe have a bit of a headache? Good's wife runs over: she knows how serious this is. Has he been affected by his Iraq war experience? He was a machine gunner so may have become inured to the seriousness of shooting people? After all being in the US army killing other people comes with the job. Had he been goaded by Renee Good's wife and blew a short fuse? I'm posing questions not making statements but these are the kinds of questions that would be asked in a law court. Certainly he should be immediately relieved of duty pending an investigation, be ordered to hand in his gun and any other weapons he has. Whatever the outcome I sincerely hope he never acts as an armed security officer in any capacity ever again.

The key question is did Renee Good do anything that deserved being shot in the head. The self defence argument has been refuted. Note that the grainy video taken from the right has been speeded up and manipulated. It is not reliable evidence. This argument that the first shot was ok is also fallacious since he fired three shots not one shot, and the last two were fired into the vehicle from the side when there was clearly going to be no impact on him from the vehicle. Good cannot be held responsible for her driving after she has been shot.

This video clarifies the issues:
Hahaha, on the video you provided the narrator says Good was parked in the middle of the street.
The video also contains profanity, you may want to take it down before it’s reported
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
30,172
9,781
66
✟468,729.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
She was there as a protester and SCOTUS has affirmed that protesting and filming is protected by the Constitution. She was about a hundred yards away from the ICE operation which is well outside any limits that courts have allowed. Which means that she wasn't obstructing ICE.

She was annoying ICE agents. Nothing illegal about that.
Yes she was a protestor. But you don't know what she had been doing through out the operation. At the time of the video she was being annoying and was blocking a lane of traffic. But you don't know what else she had been involved in.
Yes it does and many of those end with officers losing their jobs or being punished for violating civil rights.
No it doesn't. Officers are not violating anyone's civil rights for yelling at them.
You're not watching many. I see lots. I also see lots of stupid motorists not understanding their actual rights.
I see a lot of stupid motorists who think they know their rights, but they don't. O also see a lot of stupid people who deserve to be yelled at for refusing to get out of the car when stopped.
Yeah, that smiling face saying, "I'm not mad at you" scared those poor ICE agents.
No one claimed they were scared because she said that. That is your anti ICE bias speaking with no factual basis.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. An officer rushing up screaming "Get out of the car" and trying to, illegally, open their door, isn't threatening. LOL
Irrelevant. You cannot refuse an order just because the officer yells at you. Raising your voice while giving commands is a time tested and fully accepted method of ordering someone to do something. You have no idea if the officer was illegally trying to open her door or not.
It is illegal for police to reach into a vehicle, until the driver has been given the chance to obey a lawful order,
No its not.
These cases are usually thrown out of court with all charges dropped because police violated the driver's rights.
What do mean by "these cases" and what is your evidence for this claim?
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
30,172
9,781
66
✟468,729.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Discussion about parking violations are irrelevant since it is clearly wrong to shoot someone in the head from short range for a parking violation.
Totally agree, thats why she wasn't shot for that. So why did you bring it up?
ICE are not traffic police and there was no reason for Good to obey their instruction to get out of the car as she had not broken any immigration laws. ICE were exceeding their jurisdiction in this case.
ICE has the jurisdiction to enforce other federal laws besides immigration laws.
And again not getting out of the car is no justification for being shot in the head from close range though an open window.
No it's not. You are correct. Its a good that that wasn't the reason she was shot.
The key question is did Renee Good do anything that deserved being shot in the head. The self defence argument has been refuted.
What she deserved is irrelevant to this case. What is relevant is what if danger the officer believed he was in at the time and if it was a reasonable belief. This is being disputed by the left. The rest of us see what happened and say, since he was actually struck by the car his actions my have been a reasonable response. But we really don't know all the factors. You are not in the proper position to say whether or not this was legally justified.
Note that the grainy video taken from the right has been speeded up and manipulated. It is not reliable evidence.
Its all evidence. You don't have the expertise to determine what video is reliable and what isn't.
This argument that the first shot was ok is also fallacious since he fired three shots not one shot, and the last two were fired into the vehicle from the side when there was clearly going to be no impact on him from the vehicle.
It is settled law that police firing more than one round under certain circumstances is just fine. When physiological factors come into play we can easily say that firing three rounds under the conditions at the time is perfectly reasonable strictly due to the physiology of the human body and mind.
 
Upvote 0

Vanellus

Newbie
Sep 15, 2014
1,894
687
✟177,264.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Hahaha, on the video you provided the narrator says Good was parked in the middle of the street.
The video also contains profanity, you may want to take it down before it’s reported
Yes there does seem to be an odd idea of what is meant by middle. Note that was said by the New York Times journalist not the narrator of the video and this is the still shown when it is said. As you can see Good is parked across one of the two lanes - that is not the middle of the road is it!

suv_good_middle.png


Now the narrator also said ICE did not have jurisdiction over traffic laws. Why not mention that? And remember Renee Good was shot dead and I think we agree that no one should be shot dead for a parking violation. Yes?
 
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,621
8,288
62
Montgomery
✟292,220.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes there does seem to be an odd idea of what is meant by middle. Note that was said by the New York Times journalist not the narrator of the video and this is the still shown when it is said. As you can see Good is parked across one of the two lanes - that is not the middle of the road is it!

View attachment 375653

Now the narrator also said ICE did not have jurisdiction over traffic laws. Why not mention that? And remember Renee Good was shot dead and I think we agree that no one should be shot dead for a parking violation. Yes?
ICE can‘t write tickets but they can arrest people for interfering or obstructing. We have already been down this rabbit hole
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,839
2,157
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟347,222.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Steve, I think you guys are arguing over minutia here. Neither one of you know what she meant. The exact wording of "you come" indicate she was saying ICE would come to them. We don't what she thought about how or why ICE would come to them. That could have several different meanings.

But honestly it is irrelevant to the reason she was shot.
Yes that is why I did not want to discuss this anymore. I could see it was going nowhere and is premature. We don't know or agree what Rebecca meant until further info comes out.

I think it is relevant to some degree in that it will shed more light on their motives and level of engagement. If she is a regular agitator then it shows they were not so innocent as being innocent spectators who happened to be in the wrong place and the wrong time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,621
8,288
62
Montgomery
✟292,220.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
But why bring up this pedantic point when the issue is that Renee Good was shot dead for no good reason?
Me? You have written enough to fill an encyclopedia about her car not being in the middle of the road
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,839
2,157
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟347,222.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Ok, I think I have showed that your initial statement in post #185 wasn't supported by the facts at hand when you made it. If anyone has read our exchange they will come to their own conclusion.
Neither is anything you said. Thats the point. Its impossible to tell and the disagreements will go on forever until further info is made available.

But my point could very well be correct as well and should not be counted out. The facts don't disprove it. They are just unclear at the moment.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
17,685
4,560
Louisville, Ky
✟1,084,088.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes she was a protestor. But you don't know what she had been doing through out the operation. At the time of the video she was being annoying and was blocking a lane of traffic. But you don't know what else she had been involved in.
And we don't know what the ICE agents had for breakfast. It's irrelevant.
No it doesn't. Officers are not violating anyone's civil rights for yelling at them.
Not for yelling but he was by trying to get inside her vehicle.
I see a lot of stupid motorists who think they know their rights, but they don't. O also see a lot of stupid people who deserve to be yelled at for refusing to get out of the car when stopped.
No doubt.
No one claimed they were scared because she said that. That is your anti ICE bias speaking with no factual basis.
You don't recognize sarcasm, do you
Irrelevant. You cannot refuse an order just because the officer yells at you.
You can refuse an unlawful order. An ICE agent isn't a police officer and even police can't lawfully do that.

She was blocking traffic and a police officer can order her to move her car out of the street. If she refuses, he can order her out of the car and if she still refuses he can remove her with force.
You have no idea if the officer was illegally trying to open her door or not.
Well, you've done nothing to show that it was legal.
No its not.
Yes, it is. That's been ruled on by SCOTUS
What do mean by "these cases" and what is your evidence for this claim?
The cases where ICE over reaches their authority against protesters.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
30,172
9,781
66
✟468,729.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
And we don't know what the ICE agents had for breakfast. It's irrelevant.
No its not. Its not irrelevant if she had been interferring with their operations through out the day. And apparently she still was.
Not for yelling but he was by trying to get inside her vehicle.
Thats also not a violation of her civil rights when they commanded her to get out. She was refusing.
You don't recognize sarcasm, do you
Apparently not. It didn't sound like sarcasm.
You can refuse an unlawful order. An ICE agent isn't a police officer and even police can't lawfully do that.
Oh? And how do you know its unlawful? Most people wouldnt know an unlawful order of this type if it slapped them in the face. And in this case you have no clue if it was unlawful.
Well, you've done nothing to show that it was legal.
You are the one that claimed it was illegal. You need to prove your assertion. Police can absolutely reach into car when commanding you to get out.
Yes, it is. That's been ruled on by SCOTUS
Whats the case?
The cases where ICE over reaches their authority against protesters.
Whats the case?
 
Upvote 0