Minnesota is not a happy place at the moment, what with the multi-billion-dollar welfare fraud story and now this:
After an immigration agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis on Wednesday morning, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and President Donald Trump portrayed that use of lethal force as clearly justified. Noem averred that the dead woman, Renee Nicole Good, was engaged in an “act of domestic terrorism” because she was trying to “run a law enforcement officer over.” Trump went even further, saying Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.” (Reason magazine.)
Bystander video of the incident immediately cast doubt on those accounts. Footage from various angles “appears to show the agent,” later identified as Jonathan Ross, “was not in the path of [Good’s] SUV when he fired three shots at close range,” The New York Times reported on Thursday. “The SUV did move toward the ICE agent as he stood in front of it,” The Washington Post noted. “But the agent was able to move out of the way and fire at least two of three shots from the side of the vehicle as it veered past him.”
I am not going to get into the “who did what?” side of this, but I think that to some extent, this is what happens when people who are pressured to “get results” and operate in a system where they are encouraged to do so. For many years, law enforcement in different countries has had this issue, with the US in the lead. We are seeing the increasing militarisation of law enforcement. Radley Balko, who now works at the Washington Post, has done important work in shining a light on where this is going for many years. Things are seemingly getting worse the current administration but this did not come from nowhere.
Several Samizdata commenters are, if I recall correctly, those with law enforcement experience, so I’d be interested to know what the rights and wrongs are here.
The car hit him – it hit his leg.
And he had previously, in an another incident, been hit by another activist driven car – and had 30 stitches.
The lady who was shot was not some random person – the lady and her “wife” were activists who even sent their children to a “Social Justice” school to be trained to attack.
Do the media really not know any of above? Or do they deliberately leave it out of their “reporting”?
I do not know – but it does take long (a few minutes) to find out, so if the media does not know – it is because they do not WANT to know.
It is the same with election fraud, Covid, and everything else – the media (not just openly leftist publications such as the Washington Post – but supposedly non leftist publications such as the Wall Street Journal) not only refuse to report the truth – they actively cover it up, and attack (sneer at) anyone who tells the truth.
Unfortunately the media seem to be utterly committed to the Progressive agenda of world governance – of which the open borders ideology is part.
This is not acceptable.
If the media insist on Civil War this would be tragic, a terrible tragedy, but they must understand that they are quite likely to be on the losing side in such a Civil War – so it would be in the own interests (it really would) to step back – to just STOP this.
As for law enforcement in Minnesota.
Mr George Floyd died of drugs he willingly consumed, but a police officer (who was falsely smeared as a “racist”) was sent to prison for “murder” – although no murder took place (who was murdered?), to be cut up – knifed. Other police officers were also sent to prison (although not for so long) including an Asian police officer – whose “crime” appears to have been that he was a Christian (how this is a crime, was not explained).
The “justice” system in Minnesota is headed by State Attorney General Mr Keith Ellison – a far leftist, whose hatred (actual hatred) for the principles of law, and for Western civilization, is plain. To be fair to this Gentleman he has never covered it up – that he is an enemy of the United States (as defined under such things as the Insurrection Act) is sadly plain, and he has nothing but hatred for the “capitalist” Constitution that he is supposedly sworn to defend.
There can be no compromise with people such as Mr Ellison or Governor Walz (who is a puppet of these forces).
Sadly it really is the case that they destroy you – or you destroy them. There is no middle ground – not in this situation.
They destroy you, or you destroy them – and that goes for their supporters as well.
It is a “military” situation – as these are not political opponents, they are enemies.
A political opponent accepts the “rules of the game” – the forces of “Social Justice” wish to destroy “the game”, capitalist society, and wipe out their enemies.
So they are not opponents – they are enemies.
Hence such things as the Insurrection Act.
Here’s the best breakdown and analysis both of the incident itself and the law governing it that I’ve seen so far:
https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/minneapolis-is-not-even-a-close-call
She did purposefully turn the wheels to point the vehicle at the ICE agent. She then purposefully accelerated toward him. Her vehicle (a two ton lethal weapon) did, in fact, strike the agent, but that is irrelevant. In the split second he had to react, any rational person would be in fear of death or great bodily harm as a result of her actions and self-defense is fully justified.
The point behind self defense is to PREVENT yourself from being killed or seriously injured by an assailant. If you have to wait until after they actually kill or seriously injure you before you can take action, kind of defeats the purpose doesn’t it?
https://shipwreckedcrew.substack.com/p/minneapolis-is-not-even-a-close-call
Long, but thorough.
At this point, the opinions of law enforcement are more-or-less meaningless. For what it’s worth, I had serious concerns about this affair until I watched later video from the point of view of the officer who fired the shots. It’s quite clear that the vehicle struck him – you can hear the impact and see the shock as the camera jerks sideways. The fact that this selfsame officer was struck by another vehicle a few months ago and sustained serious (although not life-threatening) injuries, will be another major factor.
What matters at this point are the opinions of lawyers, and the question is quite simple – did he have, in that instant, a fear of death or serious injury to himself, or to others, that made his use of deadly force “reasonable”? What she thought or intended or did or did not do is immaterial – all that matters is what he thought in that instant. While the question is very simple, finding an answer will be very hard. And at this point, the legal answer is more-or-less immaterial, because those who need this unfortunate death for their own political ends have already made up their minds and no mere jury verdict is going to change them.
llater,
llamas
Heh. Two minds, with but a single thought. . . .
llater,
llamas
And – Sailorcurt, with all due respect, your post illustrates how hard it is to stay within the lines the law sets out. You say the victim did things ‘purposefully’, when you actually have no way of knowing why she did, what she did. She may have been unaware of the officer’s location, she may have misjudged his motion and thought she would not strike him, her foot may have slipped or misapplied the gas pedal. The best you can say is that she did what she did ‘voluntarily’, or by choice, but you cannot make any judgement as to her purpose, and indeed, neither coukd the officer in that moment. Maybe if she had a PA system on the roof of her car and was yelling ‘I’ll run you down!’, the question of her ‘purpose’ might be relevant to the officer’s state of mind, but she didn’t and it isn’t. As it is, assertions about whether she did what she did ‘purposefully’ all tend to try and justify the officer’s actions, when they should not have any bearing whatever on that judgement.
llater,
llamas
I know a few J6’ers who would be rolling on the floor and laughing at this statement.
So far this weekend, I’ve been hit with an ICE pepperball, and had a car window broken out by a purple-haired screaming bitch. And it’s still just Sunday morning. This is what happens when you’re in the overlap spot in the Venn diagram.
P.S. Every state has its own Use Of Deadly Force statute. In Minnesota, it’s M.S. 609.066.
This is the state law standard by which the officer will be judged, assuming an ICE officer qualifies as a “peace officer.
Bobby: J6ers?
but I think that to some extent, this is what happens when people who are pressured to “get results” and operate in a system where they are encouraged to do so. For many years, law enforcement in different countries has had this issue, with the US in the lead. We are seeing the increasing militarisation of law enforcement.
Although I think there is some truth to this statement, this is not that. The situation with ICE is simply one of ongoing, systematic, organized and deliberate interference with the just execution of federal law. If you are doing that it is not going to go well. These agents are not armed with machine guns, it is a bit deceptive, the things that look like rifles are actually pepper spray guns. Of course all police in the USA carry a side arm. So the death of this woman is a not at all surprising outcome of the systematic and often violent resistance to the legitimate use of police force to deport people here illegally, usually very bad people.
In regards to this specific incident, I think the officer is going to be either not charged or acquitted because the feds take jurisdiction here. If it were in a state court in Hennepin county they would undoubtedly do a Chauvin on him. Most lawyers I know say this is a clear case of self defense. Was the car a threat to him — hell yes, the video evidence is clear that it actually hit him. Me? I’m not a lawyer but what I will say is that looking at the video he fired one shot while she was hitting him which was surely justified, but after he rolled off the side he seemed to fire two more shots through the side window when he was clearly out of danger. Was that just adrenaline? Did I misjudge the video? I don’t know. He was in contact with the car for too short a time to discharge his weapon three times, and based on the sound of the shots it seems to me that two were after he was at the side and out of danger. But I also recognize two things — it is a hugely difficult situation and hindsight is 20/20, but I also recognize that if you are a LEO you are supposed to be trained to handle these difficult situations well.
So I think this is a difficult case — if the first shot killed her then the subsequent shots don’t matter, but if one of the other shots killed her I think is is a lot less clear cut and we need a very careful review of the evidence.
Where most people stand on this is far more to do with their thoughts on whether ICE are Nazis or fulfilling their obligations enforcing federal law — which seems pretty much split down the middle. I think the happiest man in America though is Tim Walz who is going all in to use this to distract the country from the torrent of evidence of his and his administration’s corruption, fecklessness and malfeasance.
Just an FYI, this is not a settled issue.
Sorry, shorthand here doesn’t always translate. 1000 or so defendants from the January 6, 2021 protest at the US capital.
@bobby b
Just an FYI, this [jurisdiction] is not a settled issue.
OK, I thought as a federal officer acting in his capacity it was clearly in their jurisdiction, but you sure as hell know a lot more about it than me. For sure, which way that goes will entirely determine this man’s fate. I remember Chauvin’s trial where the courthouse was surrounded by mobs ready to lynch any jury member unwilling to go along with the narrative, Molotov cocktails in hand ready to burn down the city were they not to get their way. Managed by a police force whose leadership would rather the city burned to the ground than that they misgender someone. I would expect nothing less here for this man.
I was scrolling down the page to make this very point. The screaming left in the US think they are at war with the authorities but scream louder when the authorities fight back.
It is possible the media really do not know the basic facts of this case.
Or of the case of Mr Floyd and Officer Chauvin.
Or the facts about Covid.
Or the facts about anything at all.
It is possible that I am assuming bad intent – when all that is at work is honest ignorance.
But I still find this baffling – as I have no difficulty at all in finding out the facts basic matters, such as election fraud.
I am still inclined to the view that the media do not know (for example do not know the facts about these leftist activists – one of whom is no longer in this world) because they do-not-want-to-know.
This was not the first time this ICE agent had been attacked – he had been severely injured in another car attack, and he did NOT fully avoid this car attack, he was hit again – although, thankfully, not so seriously this time.
As for the leftist activists – they must understand that if they insist (insist) on Civil War, even sending their children to “Social Justice” schools to be taught to attack, that Civil War will be fought.
That Civil War, if they insist upon it, will be fought – and the left, the media and so on, are likely to lose that Civil War – and to no longer be in this world.
So please stop pushing for Civil War, it is in your interests (Washington Post crowd and so on) to step back.
As for J6.
It is now clear, as if there was any real doubt, that the 2020 Presidential Election was rigged – that there was massive election fraud.
It is also the case that the people who entered the Capitol Building did so on the urging of Agent Provocateurs – working for the FBI and other agencies.
Just as some people said at-the-time.
For the media to continue to deny the above facts – is not acceptable.
It’s not that I know more about it, it’s that I know that we both know less about it than we suspect. If that makes any sense.
Triggered by the murders of 80 or so people in Waco by the feds back in ’93, there has been a lot of discussion about what rights the states retain in such situations. Books have been written on this very issue. The Texas state authorities in the end decided not to attempt to charge the FBI agents involved – just too much of a legal mess, plus they were politically aligned – but there is no definitive answer as to what they could have done.
Might be a moot question anyway. Our esteemed MN Attorney General Keith Ellison announced this morning that, if the State and Hennepin County both decide to avoid that fight for now, there is no statute of limitations time period for murder, and so they will simply wait for the next Democrat presidential administration, and either have the fed DOJ charge the officer then, or charge him with state crimes knowing the DOJ will waive its own jurisdiction.
Either way, the officer’s future is grim. A trial in Hennepin County will be a kangaroo trial, much like Chauvin’s.
(ETA: When I say his future is grim, I do think that, on currently-available evidence, he SHOULD prevail, but even then, the process is the punishment. Chauvin should have prevailed, too.)
@bobby b
Might be a moot question anyway. Our esteemed MN Attorney General Keith Ellison announced this morning that, if the State and Hennepin County both decide to avoid that fight for now, there is no statute of limitations time period for murder, and so they will simply wait for the next Democrat presidential administration, and either have the fed DOJ charge the officer then, or charge him with state crimes knowing the DOJ will waive its own jurisdiction.
Perhaps the best course of action for this officer is for the DOJ to prosecute him in a MN federal court where the jury is drawn from the many sensible people of MN who do not live in the twin cities and either be acquitted, thus protecting him with double jeopardy, or were he convicted be pardoned by the President. Sometimes it is better to yank off the band-aid. Of course a civil lawsuit which will inevitably follow could very well destroy the man but at least that is only money rather than liberty.
And whatever happens you can be sure of death and destruction in the Minneapolis and no doubt many other cities across the country. No doubt there will be violent protests in London too, because… some people just like to yell a lot and some people just like to watch the world burn.
You might want to consider getting out of Minnesota and move to somewhere less insane, like Southern California, Moscow or North Korea.
And BTW, Go Bears.
I was in Minneapolis for the Covid lockdown. I was in town for Chauvin’s trial. I saw the charred remains of Uncle Hugo’s Science Fiction Bookstore. I moved out just in time to avoid the daycare fundng scandal, let alone on this latest suicide-by-cop.
And I can be sure of one thing: if any officer of the law does anything upsetting to the left, they will not get a fair trial. The screaming, burning, smashing mob will make sure of it. It would be a death sentence to be on the jury that acquits him.
Unless, of course, the defendant is a black muslim officer who shot a white Republican.
I’m white and conservative. Suddenly I feel much safer having moved to a red state. Minnesota has lost its collective mind.
Fraser Orr:
You said, “I’m not a lawyer but what I will say is that looking at the video he fired one shot while she was hitting him which was surely justified, but after he rolled off the side he seemed to fire two more shots through the side window when he was clearly out of danger.”
From the best of the videos it is clear that he fired his first two, and possibly all three, shots from IN FRONT OF the vehicle. The physical evidence of this is conclusive since there is one bullet hole entering the windshield, and then a second one entering from the FRONT of the rear-view mirror. Unless you’ve got access to some top-secret super-duper target chasing bullets that can make U-turns, this means those shots were fired while he was IN FRONT OF the SUV. I do not see any evidence of him pulling the trigger once the vehicle has slewed around and he has dodged off to the driver-side and is sticking his firearm through the open window…at whom I cannot tell, but it might be either the driver or the passenger. In any case he showed tremendous restraint since most untrained people would panic and do a magazine-dump. He fired until the threat to his life was ended, and then he stopped.
Personally I’d like to know the caliber of pistol he was using and what type of ammunition it was…a one-shot stop (apparently his other two missed) is pretty amazing to anyone who knows about personal defence. Is ICE using the 9mm Euro-pellet? Is it the .40 S&W (short & weak)? Whatever it was his ammuntion defeated the barrier of the windshield with enough oomph left over to fatally wound the driver.
I’ve been carrying a firearm for over 20 years and have never drawn it except at the range or to clean it. I hope I never have to, but if I do, I hope that I (and my ammo) perform as well as this officer did.
1) I will note that I am a long retired Commissioned Peace Officer who wore the badge for almost 3 decades.
2) I will say that the evidence cited by Mr. Marks above matches my view of the specific case under discussion.
3) For a society, any society under any system of law, to be a “law-abiding” society the validity of the laws passed has to be accepted by an overwhelming majority of that society.
4) We seem to be on the edge of that boundary now. This may have consequences.
5) One of the absolute markers of national sovereignty is the ability to decide who crosses your borders and is allowed to stay under what conditions. Hostile foreign invaders who consider themselves outside the law are neither immigrants nor refugees.
6) A huge percentage of those detained by ICE have been convicted of felony violations of our criminal laws here beyond illegal entry and thus have no right to remain here in any case.
7) As an American of Chinese ancestry, I well note that ethnic prejudices can distort the fair enforcement of the law. Until 1943, under US Federal law, Chinese were specifically NOT considered to be human beings. Past injustices do not void the enforcement of current laws that are themselves not unjust.
Subotai Bahadur
If, as stated above, the point of self defense is to prevent harm to yourself, can someone explain to me how shooting a driver accelerating towards you from 3 feet away possibly meets that definition? At the point he shot her there was no way in hell killing her would have any effect on the situation, except make it possibly worse. Had he simply stepped aside, which even the stupidest person on the face of the Earth would realize is the safest path, he could then reassess and determine if she was an actual threat.
@Blackwing1 the honest truth is I don’t know and there is a need for a detailed forensic investigation, but as you point out there was only one bullet hole in the glass and her side window was wound down. So either he hit the glass with one bullet and the others missed completely (which is certainly possible — presumably the impact would have caused his aim to be defected), or he continued to discharge after he rolled off through the side window.
It is really hard to tell and the three shots were fired in about one second. But if you look at this video and if you look particularly at this screen shot you can see the agent standing to the side and a puff of smoke coming from a discharge of his firearm.
Also, if you look at this video in slow motion from his phone you can see where he is facing (or at least his camera is facing) and hear the three shots, and to me he seems to clearly be facing away from the car for two of the shots, and looking at it in the previous video he was only doing that until after the car was no longer in contact with him.
Like I say, I don’t know, and I’d like to see the forensics, the most troubling thing I see is the still image above where he is clearly out of danger and seemed to continue shooting. Of course high pressure, no 20/20 hindsight, all I’m saying is that it is not, to me anyway, clear cut that this was as simple as either side is saying. I am VERY sympathetic to the ICE agent, but I am also trying not to allow my biases shape the facts, and think we all should be open minded about what actually happened. And if my analysis is correct it depends on whether the first, justifiable shot killed her, or not. And only the medical examiner can determine that.
As to the information you presented about the mirror, I haven’t seen it, so can’t comment.
A little more skepticism is in order before rushing to the hand-wringing.
The Left has been trying to kick off La Revolution for the last few years… they realize this may be their last chance.
Remember George Floyd? Same state, same bolshie leadership – just more desperate now that their corruption is exposed.
Yes that’s right – this is the same Left-leaning state in which the death of a violent drug addict was spun into another Children’s Crusade of victimhood, with months of violence… burning down entire neighborhoods over nothing.
To prudishly wring one’s hands and talk about how THE COPS are “under pressure for results” is absolutely gormless and tone-deaf… it is the Dems who are pouring on incendiary rhetoric, hoping that one of their more unbalanced followers will light the match that kicks off more intentional “chaos”.
You really got this one ass-backwards.
Fortunately the citizens – remembering the fires and violence last time – understand the tactic, and have mostly refused to play along.
The outrage is limited to the small group of corrupt pols, political “organizers”, and True Believer.
@Bob Smith
If, as stated above, the point of self defense is to prevent harm to yourself, can someone explain to me how shooting a driver accelerating towards you from 3 feet away possibly meets that definition?
It is very easy to type that in your comfortable house playing multiple angles in slow motion, but when someone is a lethal threat, shooting is often the natural reaction. Plus if she had hostile intent she may well have tried to catch him in such a way to drag him or drive over his body — something that had recently happened to this specific officer causing him great injury and no doubt trauma. This is compounded by the fact that she was fleeing arrest and had been very belligerent to that officer all day.
I can’t find the video right now I’ll try to find, buy Megyn Kelly showed a video of a female cop in almost identical situation where a driver DID actually kill her by driving over her body. This happened quite recently. (Apologies, I don’t have the details right now.)
Shooting the woman takes her intent out of the picture, and leaves the officer only to predict outcomes by the laws of physics rather than the malicious intent of a potentially homicidal adversary.
And you are mistaken if you think he could have stepped aside in time, it was clear that he simply did not have time to do that.
FWIW, based on what I see I don’t actually think the woman was trying to hit the cop, she was simply trying to get away and avoid arrest. But for sure there is no way the officer could have known her intent. So in a sense I think it was a tragic accident with dreadful consequences.
At the point he shot her there was no way in hell killing her would have any effect on the situation, except make it possibly worse.
And you think it is reasonable to expect him to make that assessment in the 250 milliseconds he had to make the call? And, FWIW, even with your cool, calculated time to assess, I don’t think you are right as I explained above. So why don’t you and I spend the next three days debating that, and impose of the officer the expectation that he can make that assessment in under half a second.
Were I in a punny mood, I might say that, no, Minneapolis has found its collective mind.
It’s the Borg.
The two saddest things in all of this are this woman’s three kids, one of which has now lost both natural parents, and bobby b’s correct assessment that “Either way, the officer’s future is grim.”
I hope we can figure out how to come to this officer’s aid! I’m sure there will be a GoFundMe for him should he need attorneys or entry into a witness protection program, but the crazies will be literally gunning for him. How can we help there?
“It’s the Borg”, yes! But resistance is NOT futile!
Fraser Orr:
And you think it is reasonable to expect him to make that assessment in the 250 milliseconds he had to make the call?
————————-
That is exactly what is wrong with so many of the middle and upper class people in these stories. The wealth and safety of the West have completely insulated several generations of college people from real violence and its consequences.
That blind spot led this woman to think she was invincible, that the regular rules did not apply to her – like many suburbanites who, in their boredom, have romanticized the idea of revolution.
The same blind spot afflicts many of the hair-splitters and hand-wringers now second-guessing a guy (probably not of their class…) who actually was trained for violence, and has actually encountered it, repeatedly…
But what does some working class slob know?
Nothing gave me more respect for officers in situations like this – and more contempt for idiots playing with the tinderbox of violence – than receiving actual training in rifle use when I moved to Israel, and actually participating in security patrols around our village.
As Mike Tyson used to say when he grew tired of commentators – “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”