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

[stevevw]

But what makes you think that they wouldn't try to stop them from murders and rapes? So why would you say something this?

What if the politicians knew about the data but did not act on it. It could be a number of reasons. From mismagement as far as the time it took from identifying to arrest.

To ideological reasons. Obviously each side has a belief about immigration policy and enforment. If one side is soft of the idea of enforcement then they are not going to be as diligent as someone who is pro enforcement.

If they are suspects in a rape or murder case the non-ICE police will pick them up interrogate them and if the prosecutor thinks that they have a case, the suspects will be brought to criminal court and have their day in court.

You would think that would be the normal process of law. Like I said it will depend on a number of reasons why. For example many people honestly believe that every person being picked up is innocent and should be allowed to stay regardless of whether they are a criminal or not.

Its a fact that the majority of those taken into custody are criminals. Thats not to say that being an illegal immigrant is a crime as well. But if the majority raken into custody are criminals. Then it stands to reason and high probability that the protestors in making it hard for officers and even blocking them. They are doing so against fed officers arresting a criminal in their own neighbourhoods.

The problem is the narrative is promoted that everyone picked up is innocent. There is no destinction made and this is a false narrative which then encourages others to believe the same and escalates things.

If everyone acknowledge that the officers like a normal drug bust are going in to arrest the criminals then everyone should back off. They would not do that to Drug enforcement officers doing a drug bust.

How did you reach this conclusion?

I just explained this above. The protestors claim teh ICE agents are going in arresting innocents. When they are actually going in to arrest criminals. Thus in their good intention they are preventing law enforcement from arresting criminals.

Good, then they should bring them to court.

Yes that should be the course of natural justice. But I think the rule of law has long been lost. I think in part it was the undermining of such long held principles that has caused the whole mess. The culture war that has divided people to hate each other.

Good's death is one in many incidents that have happened that are symptoms of a deeper cultural issue that will continue to see more deaths.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What if the politicians knew about the data but did not act on it. It could be a number of reasons. From mismagement as far as the time it took from identifying to arrest.

To ideological reasons. Obviously each side has a belief about immigration policy and enforment. If one side is soft of the idea of enforcement then they are not going to be as diligent as someone who is pro enforcement.

You would think that would be the normal process of law. Like I said it will depend on a number of reasons why. For example many people honestly believe that every person being picked up is innocent and should be allowed to stay regardless of whether they are a criminal or not.

Its a fact that the majority of those taken into custody are criminals.

Beside crimes against immigration law? I'm going to need a reference for that, since this data would indicate otherwise.

https://tracreports.org/immigration/quickfacts/

Thats not to say that being an illegal immigrant is a crime as well. But if the majority raken into custody are criminals. Then it stands to reason and high probability that the protestors in making it hard for officers and even blocking them. They are doing so against fed officers arresting a criminal in their own neighbourhoods.

The problem is the narrative is promoted that everyone picked up is innocent. There is no destinction made and this is a false narrative which then encourages others to believe the same and escalates things.

If everyone acknowledge that the officers like a normal drug bust are going in to arrest the criminals then everyone should back off. They would not do that to Drug enforcement officers doing a drug bust.

I just explained this above. The protestors claim teh ICE agents are going in arresting innocents. When they are actually going in to arrest criminals. Thus in their good intention they are preventing law enforcement from arresting criminals.

Yes that should be the course of natural justice. But I think the rule of law has long been lost. I think in part it was the undermining of such long held principles that has caused the whole mess. The culture war that has divided people to hate each other.

That is not a reason to not afford suspects due process.

Good's death is one in many incidents that have happened that are symptoms of a deeper cultural issue that will continue to see more deaths.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Maybe when it was said back then it was the sign of things to come. Usually there is some justified concern.

It isn't justified. That is my point. I see you want to play in the same iffy space as Rob.

I would say post war was a golden age of immigration. Immigrants like the Italians, Greeks and other European nations and from Britain integrated well.

By post war, you must mean the war that we use to indicate "antebellum"? After that war was the period of greatest immigration. A period of mass migration that started with the first rising of the klan focused on terrorizing newly freed slaves to not vote and ended with the mass movement of the second rising triumphantly ending mass migration in their quest against immigrants, Catholics, and Jews.

But in later times immigrants were brought in on mass from nations in conflict and they were not integrated. In most recent times this got completely out of hand due to ideological reasons. Along with slack border security.

This phrasing is 99% WRONG. With the exception of specific groups of refugees, immigrants are not "brought in" at all. No country is going into another country and scooping up full villages to move across the ocean. Individuals make those choices for themselves.

Now we are seeing the end results. This is not nonsense. The violence in the streets is not nonsense. The many nations now reacting and tightening up immigration is not nonsense. The increased ideologically based terror is not nonsense but reality.

The violence on the streets is from the government.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Fair enough. I can't be bothered making you go back and find my words. Or that my words meant what you think I meant. My approach to these situations is always to mention that we don't know all the facts so making claims is premature.

Remember you were trying to make the case for the drug boats. I said do you have access to the Intel. No one knew because no one knew the intel. That was an obvious and logical conclusion.

The same with this. Lounge chair analysts don't have access to all the evidence.
But this is doing the same thing. Referring to some source as truth. All I know is what Home land security said. That the officer recieved internal bleeding. Not whether it was serious or not.

Like I said with the Narco boats. There is a lot more info yet to come out. I would not count anything out. But I also know from similar examples there has been a lot of extreme claims like murder and war crimes and it has turned out not the case. So we will have to wait and see.

This isn't about drug boats, Steve. Wrong thread.

I don't think having some internal bleeding which is basically internal brusing is an extreme claim. Being hit even at a low speed by a near 1 ton piece of metal onto soft tissue is bound to cause some brusing.

I don't think you even understood what I wrote. It was principally about how and why this "info" was released.

According to "sources" the officer who killed Ms. Good had "internal bleeding" and was treated at a hospital. Officers get injured on the job and information about their injuries are common news items. It would be perfectly normal for an official press release or press conference providing that information. It might also include statements from the treating physicians.

There was none of this here. It was "sources" who were reported by administration friendly news organization being quoted anonymously. If he had actual injuries from being hit by her car, why release the info in a sneaky fashion. Why not a normal press release?

Given the various other pieces of information available: That video evidence shows a gap between the shooter and the car, that there is evidence he didn't go to the hospital, but to HQ instead; the reasonable conclusion that this information was "leaked" because some part of it is not true.

Ultimately I think this is a tragedy that did not need to happen. Any death is a bad death. The US is seeing an overdose of death. Including live deaths on the media. That has to affect a nation gravely to be at this point and its not good. Its not what we should expect from a free and democratic nation.

Well that's nice.

Well it sure seems like he did not. Which is telling in itself of a deep divide in beliefs and political ideology.

 

[rjs330]

Asking questions when someone gets shot and killed is not "Monday morning quarterbacking". Are we all to turn our heads, and just say that what happened was ok, without examining what happened or asking for an investigation? Would that serve justice?

Asking questions is fine. But I am not seeing question asking. I am seeing accusations and judgement. You seem to at least be somewhat fair in calling for a jury to decide. But before that happens an investigation needs to be completed. It may be seen that the use of force was justified and no trial is needed. Just because an officer shoots someone, doesn't mean there has to be a trial.

I look at this from a legal stand point and not an emotional one. Doea this appear to be a reasonable use of force. From everything I have seen, it does. Had she driven off without hitting him, and he shot her, we would be having a different conversation. The fact that she used a deadly weapon and hit him him with it, makes it a totally different scenario.

 

[Yarddog]

But deliberately blocking traffic and disobeying an officer’s orders is.

She wasn't blocking traffic. She was waving cars around her. The officers vehicle was blocking the lane and she was behind it and only blocking a bit of the other lane. That officer was walking around her SUV and filming. She was being very friendly to him.

 

[stevevw]

This isn't about drug boats, Steve. Wrong thread.

So a person cannot use examples from another situation to support a point. Are you the thread gatekeeper.

I don't think you even understood what I wrote. It was principally about how and why this "info" was released.

No it wasn't. You were using selected info to make out there was a crime committed by border patrol.

According to "sources" the officer who killed Ms. Good had "internal bleeding" and was treated at a hospital. Officers get injured on the job and information about their injuries are common news items. It would be perfectly normal for an official press release or press conference providing that information. It might also include statements from the treating physicians.

The initial reports had a lot of info that was not there later. And there will be more info that is leased that is not available now. But your willing to jump the gun and accuse them of murder.

There was none of this here. It was "sources" who were reported by administration friendly news organization being quoted anonymously. If he had actual injuries from being hit by her car, why release the info in a sneaky fashion. Why not a normal press release?

Yet we have a direct report from the same administration and not a sneak or anonymous leak which states the officer recieved hospital treatment. Two conflicting reports. One from directly from head of DOHS and the other an anonymous we can't verify.

But you quickly jump on the one that cannot be verified.

Given the various other pieces of information available: That video evidence shows a gap between the shooter and the car,

Yet the shooters own body cam shows him being hit and jolted. You hear the thud as the car hits him and his camera jolt. All these critics. Put yourself in his shoes with a car coming towards you from an agitator who was agaitating these officers throughout the day.

The officer already having been dragged meters by another person using their car as a weapon. Let the legal side work it out. There are 1,000s of incidents that have happened in arrests and persuit of criminals that are never scrutinised like this.

that there is evidence he didn't go to the hospital, but to HQ instead; the reasonable conclusion that this information was "leaked" because some part of it is not true.

Even if that is correct it still does not negate that the officer was hit, that Good was agitating and put her foot on the accelerator and her partner yelled "drive baby drive" to encourgae her. That she was already breaking federal laws and then disobeyed requests to get out of the car. Rather agitated further.

But regardless every person is entitled to be innocent until proven guilty. Even if guilty this still does not negate that the federal law enforcement is wrong and that there are agitators who are escalating things which are leading to people being put in harms way.

We have just seen agitators destroying ICE vehicles, stealing guns, raiding a church and attacking federal officers with shovels and rocks. Trying to break in to federal buildings. Heavens knows if they were successfu;. What are they going to do, have a shot out with ICE, This is crazy.

Well that's nice.

 

[BPPLEE]

She wasn't blocking traffic. She was waving cars around her. The officers vehicle was blocking the lane and she was behind it and only blocking a bit of the other lane. That officer was walking around her SUV and filming. She was being very friendly to him.

She was blocking a lane of traffic, sideways in the road.
The videos clearly show this

 

[Yarddog]

She was blocking a lane of traffic, sideways in the road.
The videos clearly show this

She was waving people around her because there was plenty of room to drive forward. At least until the 2nd ICE truck pulled up. That is clear on the videos.

 

[BPPLEE]

She was waving people around her because there was plenty of room to drive forward. At least until the 2nd ICE truck pulled up. That is clear on the videos.

Park your car in the road exactly like she did and when the cops come explain to them that you are not blocking traffic and they can go around.
Let me know how that works out for you

 

[Hans Blaster]

So a person cannot use examples from another situation to support a point. Are you the thread gatekeeper.

You've abused the privilege with all of your wanderings.

No it wasn't. You were using selected info to make out there was a crime committed by border patrol.

I am discussing with you the "internal bleeding" claim. Nothing else.

The initial reports had a lot of info that was not there later. And there will be more info that is leased that is not available now. But your willing to jump the gun and accuse them of murder.

The "internal bleeding" claim was not part of the original reports or the very common ephemeral things of early reporting on events.

Yet we have a direct report from the same administration and not a sneak or anonymous leak which states the officer recieved hospital treatment. Two conflicting reports. One from directly from head of DOHS and the other an anonymous we can't verify.

They are conflicting now? You just said they were the same.

But you quickly jump on the one that cannot be verified.

As I said on the first challenge by anyone to my statement it can be found with a simple search:

Records: Medics found Renee Good had gunshot wounds to chest, forearm, and head

The records reveal that when paramedics arrived, they found Renee Good unresponsive with a weak pulse.

kstp.com

Yet the shooters own body cam shows him being hit and jolted.

Not a body cam, it was his cell phone.

You hear the thud as the car hits him and his camera jolt.

What about the three shots? Do you hear those? If not, are you sure what you heard is a thud from a car?

All these critics. Put yourself in his shoes with a car coming towards you from an agitator who was agaitating these officers throughout the day.

As I said previously, just step back. A single step back takes him completely out of any question of danger.

The officer already having been dragged meters by another person using their car as a weapon.

Then he should have been smarter about standing "in front" of a car with a running engine when it "happened again".

Let the legal side work it out.

The DOJ seems to be dropping any "investigation". We, however, can discuss whatever we want.

There are 1,000s of incidents that have happened in arrests and persuit of criminals that are never scrutinised like this.

We are talking about an officer involved shooting with a fatality.

Even if that is correct it still does not negate that the officer was hit, that Good was agitating and put her foot on the accelerator and her partner yelled "drive baby drive" to encourgae her. That she was already breaking federal laws and then disobeyed requests to get out of the car. Rather agitated further.

She drove off smoothly and made a partial 3-point (Y-) turn.

But regardless every person is entitled to be innocent until proven guilty. Even if guilty this still does not negate that the federal law enforcement is wrong and that there are agitators who are escalating things which are leading to people being put in harms way.

You seem to have convicted the dead woman of being a vehicular assaulter.

We have just seen agitators destroying ICE vehicles, stealing guns, raiding a church and attacking federal officers with shovels and rocks. Trying to break in to federal buildings. Heavens knows if they were successfu;. What are they going to do, have a shot out with ICE, This is crazy.

None of which are this case.

 

[rjs330]

She wasn't blocking traffic. She was waving cars around her. The officers vehicle was blocking the lane and she was behind it and only blocking a bit of the other lane. That officer was walking around her SUV and filming. She was being very friendly to him.

You do know that blocking off a lane of traffic is against the law and considered blocking traffic right? What do you think would happen to you if you did that and the police showed up and you just told them to drive around you? And then argued you aren't really blocking traffic. I suppose you would use that argument in front of a judge too. Do you think he'd buy it?

 

[rjs330]

You seem to have convicted the dead woman of being a vehicular assaulter.

Whether she intended to hit him or not is irrelevant. She did hit him. Wherher it was an accident doeant matter. What matters is what the officer reasonably believed at the time the car was coming at him and hit him. He only had a split second to make a decision without knowing anything else.

Under the circumstances I believe his reaction was reasonable. You of course are entitled to believe differently. But in light of established court decisions it seems mine is the stronger case.

This clearly was a a tragic event. I truly wish it would not have happened. If she would have just stayed home and left the agents alone instead of chasing them around, interfering with thwir operation, harassing them and obstructing the free flow of movement, and refusing to obey a lawful order and instead try and flee the scene, she would be at home right now.

 

[Yarddog]

Park your car in the road exactly like she did and when the cops come explain to them that you are not blocking traffic and they can go around.Let me know how that works out for you

Cops weren't there. ICE was. They are not police and don't have authority over traffic, unless they are being obstructed, which they weren't.

One ICE agent was blocking her lane but she wasn't blocking the other. The video clearly shows that.

 

[Yarddog]

You do know that blocking off a lane of traffic is against the law and considered blocking traffic right?

Then you admit the ICE agent that was parked in her driving lane was illegally blocking traffic.

What do you think would happen to you if you did that and the police showed up and you just told them to drive around you?

The officer would probably drive around and ask the ICE officer to move his vehicle so traffic could flow.

And then argued you aren't really blocking traffic.

Most police would recognize that the ICE officer was illegally parked in the roadway.

I suppose you would use that argument in front of a judge too.

Yes. The judge could look at the video and see what you obviously didn't.

Do you think he'd buy it?

Yes. Most ICE arrest of protesters have been dismissed.

 

[stevevw]

You've abused the privilege with all of your wanderings.

Stop making stuff up.

I am discussing with you the "internal bleeding" claim. Nothing else.

Thats right. Your trying to use the fact that there was no internal bleeding to claim there was not threat or harm. To make the case for murder. While ignoring other factors and making false assumptions about intentions of each person.

The "internal bleeding" claim was not part of the original reports or the very common ephemeral things of early reporting on events.

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.

They are conflicting now? You just said they were the same.

How could I say they were the same ? You just told me of the anonymous report that claims the officer was not hospitalised. I am saying the official report says the opposite.

As I said on the first challenge by anyone to my statement it can be found with a simple search:

Records: Medics found Renee Good had gunshot wounds to chest, forearm, and head

The records reveal that when paramedics arrived, they found Renee Good unresponsive with a weak pulse.

kstp.com

I don't know what your point is though ? It says that Ross was taken to a DHS building. But that does not mean he may have then be taken to hospital for a check.

Not a body cam, it was his cell phone.

Ok camera then. Whats the difference. It captured the contact.

What about the three shots? Do you hear those? If not, are you sure what you heard is a thud from a car?

Yes because the cell phone actually hits the car and jolts when the car hits him. Its the thud along with the jolt of the camera hitting the car.

As I said previously, just step back. A single step back takes him completely out of any question of danger.

All this fixation on where people should have been standing. If Renee 'Just' obeyed the officers, if this or that would have happened. Its not as if they were in a position to be too concerned about where they were standing. The officers were faced with a situation they had faced many times. People using their car as a weapon.

They had ordered Renee out of the vehicle based on her already defying the law. She was refusing and she escalated the situation. The officers were bracing considering she was resisting a lawful command.

Then he should have been smarter about standing "in front" of a car with a running engine when it "happened again".

Yeah it happened fast. But then Renee should have been smarter and not resisted the lawful command and then tried to drive off to escape. She should not have been blocking officers in the first place. Lots of "shoulds" in hindsight.

The DOJ seems to be dropping any "investigation". We, however, can discuss whatever we want.

Yes the DOJ is not investigating like they have done doine so in 1,000s of similar cases. We could pull up many cases and scrutinise that this or that should have been done under a microscope.

We are talking about an officer involved shooting with a fatality.

Yes and there are 1,000s of cases where a fatality has happened in the persuit of the person. Police tell someone to keep their hands up and they then reach for their pocket. What then. Someone is chased by police and they crash the car and die. Person defends themseves from an intruder ect.

She drove off smoothly and made a partial 3-point (Y-) turn.

She sat at an angle and refused to get out of the car. The officer tried to open the door and she drove forward to avoid this. Her partner then said "drive baby drive" and Renee attempted to drive off from a standing start defying the order to get out of the car. A definite evasion and reaction to not complying.

You seem to have convicted the dead woman of being a vehicular assaulter.

She was told to stop and get out. She chose to defy that order and drive off and hot an officer in the process. She was already breaching the law and had done several times early. Driving off is an offense and so hottingan officer in the process is an offense.

I don't think she intended the outcome. She intended to resist and avoid being stopped. It was this defiance that led to the unfortunate situation. If she compled there would be no issue.

None of which are this case.

Not sure what you mean. The fact is this is the case. There has been similar incidents that officers are facing all the time in certain States. The climate has been escalated in these States where everyone is on edge. Where its becoming unsafe for law enforcement oficers to go about doing theiur job.

 

[BPPLEE]

Cops weren't there. ICE was. They are not police and don't have authority over traffic, unless they are being obstructed, which they weren't.

One ICE agent was blocking her lane but she wasn't blocking the other. The video clearly shows that.

Obstructing ICE was the only reason that she was there

 

[Hans Blaster]

Stop making stuff up.

You know you drag thread off topic. I won't indulge that here.

Thats right. Your trying to use the fact that there was no internal bleeding to claim there was not threat or harm. To make the case for murder. While ignoring other factors and making false assumptions about intentions of each person.

No. No. No. Pay attention. I was pointing out that your insertion of the "internal bleeding" claim was laundered through friendly media sources to get to you and and DHS did that in a way that implied it was not true. I'm glad you have come around to the "no internal bleeding" fact.

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.

How could I say they were the same ? You just told me of the anonymous report that claims the officer was not hospitalised. I am saying the official report says the opposite.

We were talking about the "anonymous source" reporting that he *was* hospitalized and why that was dubious.

I don't know what your point is though ? It says that Ross was taken to a DHS building. But that does not mean he may have then be taken to hospital for a check.

That is possible. Has a hospital confirmed this? (This whole thing is plagued by bad or misleading media interactions by DHS. They are either incompetent or liars or both.)

Ok camera then. Whats the difference. It captured the contact.

It captured "something" but the video does not clarify what that is. If there was contact it happened then. There seems to be a change in hand holding the phone. There are 3 gunshots. All in a few seconds where there is no coherent image on the phone camera.

Yes because the cell phone actually hits the car and jolts when the car hits him. Its the thud along with the jolt of the camera hitting the car.

That is one of the versions claimed.

All this fixation on where people should have been standing. If Renee 'Just' obeyed the officers, if this or that would have happened. Its not as if they were in a position to be too concerned about where they were standing. The officers were faced with a situation they had faced many times. People using their car as a weapon.

They had ordered Renee out of the vehicle based on her already defying the law. She was refusing and she escalated the situation. The officers were bracing considering she was resisting a lawful command.

Yeah it happened fast. But then Renee should have been smarter and not resisted the lawful command and then tried to drive off to escape. She should not have been blocking officers in the first place. Lots of "shoulds" in hindsight.

Yes the DOJ is not investigating like they have done doine so in 1,000s of similar cases. We could pull up many cases and scrutinise that this or that should have been done under a microscope.

Yes and there are 1,000s of cases where a fatality has happened in the persuit of the person. Police tell someone to keep their hands up and they then reach for their pocket. What then. Someone is chased by police and they crash the car and die. Person defends themseves from an intruder ect.

She sat at an angle and refused to get out of the car. The officer tried to open the door and she drove forward to avoid this. Her partner then said "drive baby drive" and Renee attempted to drive off from a standing start defying the order to get out of the car. A definite evasion and reaction to not complying.

She was told to stop and get out. She chose to defy that order and drive off and hot an officer in the process. She was already breaching the law and had done several times early. Driving off is an offense and so hottingan officer in the process is an offense.

I don't think she intended the outcome. She intended to resist and avoid being stopped. It was this defiance that led to the unfortunate situation. If she compled there would be no issue.

Not sure what you mean. The fact is this is the case. There has been similar incidents that officers are facing all the time in certain States. The climate has been escalated in these States where everyone is on edge. Where its becoming unsafe for law enforcement oficers to go about doing theiur job.

 

[Yarddog]

Obstructing ICE was the only reason that she was there

But she was stopped behind the ICE vehicle, that was blocking her lane. Her only way around was to pull into the opposite lane but they shot her for doing that.

 

[rjs330]

Then you admit the ICE agent that was parked in her driving lane was illegally blocking traffic.

No, becauae LE is authorized to do that. Not random citizens who are interfering with LE.

The officer would probably drive around and ask the ICE officer to move his vehicle so traffic could flow.

I doubt that very much. They would tell you to leave or face charges. Cops block roads all the time for various LE activities.

Most police would recognize that the ICE officer was illegally parked in the roadway.

No, they really wouldn't in those circumstances.

Yes. Most ICE arrest of protesters have been dismissed.

Go ahead and try it rhen, since you seem to be so sure. Let us know how it goes for you.