—> ICE / Immigration / Video from ICE shooter POV released, firestorm ensues

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 142K
  • Politics 
wmheel1287 said:
Wait...you think only one shot came from the side? Have you actually watched the videos and looked at photography of the vehicle?

There is one bullet entry through the windshield. It is low on the windshield and far to the extreme drivers side almost hitting the roof pillar. That is clearly the only shot that did not enter the open driver's window as there are no other penetrations to the vehicle.

Screenshot_20260111_134734_Chrome.jpg
Click to expand...
I have not seen that image. If the shot through the windshield can be confirmed to have come from the driver side, and not in front, then he should definitely be charged.
 
ZenMode said:
I have not seen that image. If the shot through the windshield can be confirmed to have come from the driver side, and not in front, then he should definitely be charged.
Click to expand...
The videos that show him standing to the side of the car are not enough?

But yes, the hole in the dashboard clearly came from the side. It's easy to see the direction of entry. It came from beyond the driver side front quarter panel.
 
ZenMode said:
From what I've seen, it looks like only one shot can be accounted for as coming from the side. I haven't seen anything official on the trajectory, through which window, etc.

I'm not sure how that works. Clearly this is a federal incident. I don't know if it's legal for the federal government to take sole control of the investigation.
Click to expand...
You keep using that word clearly. Clearly you do not know what that means.

This is not a federal incident. There is actually no federal law of homicide, which is why incidents like this, when prosecuted federally, are under the rubric of denying civil rights. They are first and foremost state issues. These are basic first year law school principles.

A person was shot to death on the streets of Minneapolis. That puts it squarely in the jurisdiction of the state of Minnesota. The officer could try to remove to federal court (which would very likely fail), but even so he would be tried under the laws of Minnesota. I believe, though I am not sure, the state prosecutors would be the ones prosecuting him.
 
rodoheel said:
This is the bottom line from zen's perspective: federal officials who behave irresponsibly, recklessly, and unjustifiably in their use of force have no accountability. Citizens who let themselves get anywhere near those officers are then entirely responsible for what happens to them.

I mean this is some real dark shit. "If you see federal officers coming, you should run and hide, and if you don't it's your fault if the officer is in a bad mood and/or you look at him funny and he decides to shoot you." Talk about a depressing conceptual framework for a society.
Click to expand...
And it's not just Zen, I would argue that seems to be the view of most MAGAs, given their endless ranting and raving about this topic in their replies to articles on the shooting over the past couple of days, especially once it became clear that Renee Good wasn't threatening the officers or doing anything that would have justified shooting her in the head.
 
Duke Mu said:
Our Legal Eagles can weigh in?

There could be state and/or federal charges. Clearly, Trump's feds will obstruct any investigation that would provide information to the state prosecutors of Minnesota. In addition, the Feds could take internal disciplinary action.

The state will have the coroner's report and possibly ballistics if a bullet is found in Ms. Good's body. I believe the Feds took possession of the vehicle. The reason ICE did not want the physicians from assisting Renee Good, was not just being an @$$hole and inhumane, but they didn't want any additional witness, especially with professional expertise.

I assume in the end, this will be whitewashed and there won't be sufficient data/facts for either a state or Fed. conviction/charge. We'll see.
Click to expand...
My guess is no charges initially, a Trump pardon on his way out the door and eventually a Congressional investigation which may get as close as we can hope to the truth. Its possible that the Congressional investigation will give Minnesota enough information to charge the shooter.
 
Mulberry Heel said:
And it's not just Zen, I would argue that the seems to be the view of most MAGAs, given their endless ranting and raving about this topic in their replies to articles on the shooting over the past couple of days, especially once it became clear that Renee Good wasn't threatening the officers or doing anything that would have justified shooting her in the head.
Click to expand...
A lot of it is the bullshit we hear on news clips
The proganda BS from NOEM etc works for a lot of people that are otherwise normal
 
ZenMode said:
I have not seen that image. If the shot through the windshield can be confirmed to have come from the driver side, and not in front, then he should definitely be charged.
Click to expand...
It also does not matter where the shot came from. I know you like to oversimplify things so you can understand them, and thus you like to go to simple binaries, but the law works like this:

1. The shooting is only permitted if the officer subjectively fears for his life, and that fear is objectively reasonable. These factors are judged according to the totality of the circumstance.

2. On the subjective fear: what evidence do you see of him being fearful for his life? He said nothing to indicate fear. As she drove away, he said fucking bitch, which indicates hostility, not fear. He immediately holsters his weapon. He drives away. Absolutely nothing about his conduct remotely indicates that he had any actual fear of harm.

3. On the reasonableness. The car was barely moving. Had he been struck by the car at that speed, it would have bruised him. So even on the set of facts most favorable to him (i.e. that the car hit him or might have), whatever fear he might have had was objectively unreasonable. But of course, we also know that the car was turning, that he put himself in front of the vehicle, that he was not clipped, that he shot through the side window where it was literally impossible for him to have been hit. There is no evidence whatsoever that could support a reasonable inference of fear of severe bodily harm.

4. In most controversial cases in which officers claim self-defense, the officer has at least a plausible claim. It's often, in my view, not reasonable, but there's at least something. In the Louisville shooting, an officer had been shot. That doesn't justify another officer firing ten shots blindly into an apartment, but there could have been some fear of being shot.

This is about as cut and dried as it gets. The officer was not in any danger, and there is no realistic argument that he was. There is no set of facts at all consistent with the video evidence that could give rise to any colorable claim of self-defense. Which is, of course, why the FBI is trying to catch-and-kill the investigation.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
My guess is no charges initially, a Trump pardon on his way out the door and eventually a Congressional investigation which may get as close as we can hope to the truth. Its possible that the Congressional investigation will give Minnesota enough information to charge the shooter.
Click to expand...
LOL. Trump can't pardon for the state charges. You know less than zero about the law. I was 10 years old when I learned about the difference between state and federal law.
 
superrific said:
LOL. Trump can't pardon for the state charges. You know less than zero about the law. I was 10 years old when I learned about the difference between state and federal law.
Click to expand...
gt continues to shamelessly embarrass himself. It's sad in a way.
 
superrific said:
The videos that show him standing to the side of the car are not enough?

But yes, the hole in the dashboard clearly came from the side. It's easy to see the direction of entry. It came from beyond the driver side front quarter panel.
Click to expand...
superrific said:
The videos that show him standing to the side of the car are not enough?

But yes, the hole in the dashboard clearly came from the side. It's easy to see the direction of entry. It came from beyond the driver side front quarter panel.
Click to expand...
Yes. These things are a matter of physics. His feet where just beyond the wheelbase and the shot enters at the corner of the windshield at an angle where the windshield has enhanced curvature. Windshield's are curved for aerodynamic, aesthetic, and body design reasons to be seamless. If there's anything that screams MOM'S CAR it's the underpowered 4-cyinder Honda Pilot. When the bullet entered the windshield at a 30-40° angle and would be consistent with Ross' position in front and to the side of the driver's side quarter panel for shot #1. Ross then quickly maneuvered to the side for the driver's side shots 2 and 3 through the driver's window and toward Ms. Good's defenseless head/face.

It's absolutely bizarre that have riled up folks on the interwebz are arguing against Newtonian physics.



maxresdefault-99.jpg


695e9f4e630e6.jpeg
 
superrific said:
You keep using that word clearly. Clearly you do not know what that means.

This is not a federal incident. There is actually no federal law of homicide, which is why incidents like this, when prosecuted federally, are under the rubric of denying civil rights. They are first and foremost state issues. These are basic first year law school principles.

A person was shot to death on the streets of Minneapolis. That puts it squarely in the jurisdiction of the state of Minnesota. The officer could try to remove to federal court (which would very likely fail), but even so he would be tried under the laws of Minnesota. I believe, though I am not sure, the state prosecutors would be the ones prosecuting him.
Click to expand...
Thank you for typing this out because it was giving me a headache but not as big a headache as engaging with Zen.
 
Bigs23 said:
gt continues to shamelessly embarrass himself. It's sad in a way.
Click to expand...
I think everyone, except him and apparently you, knew that the hypothetical steps were:

1. Trump pardon (for federal charges)
2. Congressional investigation uncovers facts
3. Minnesota uses those facts for state charges.

You are not helping him by enabling his mental struggles. We've all seen where this goes multiple times now.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think everyone, except him and apparently you, knew that the hypothetical steps were:

1. Trump pardon (for federal charges)
2. Congressional investigation uncovers facts
3. Minnesota uses those facts for state charges.

You are not helping him by enabling his mental struggles. We've all seen where this goes multiple times now.
Click to expand...
Most of the time it goes to you being humiliated because you try to argue with someone who knows infinitely more about this than you do. At no point did you specify that you were referring to Trump pardoning for federal charges.

But anyway, it does not requires a Congressional investigation. The state may make a Touhy request to obtain information from the FBI. 28 CFR section 16.26 sets out a list of factors that the FBI (or DOJ, which handles the FBI's business on these issues) may use to refuse production. These factors are as follows:

Among the demands in response to which disclosure will not be made by any Department official are those demands with respect to which any of the following factors exist:

(1) Disclosure would violate a statute, such as the income tax laws, 26 U.S.C. 6103 and 7213, or a rule of procedure, such as the grand jury secrecy rule, F.R.Cr.P., Rule 6(e),

(2) Disclosure would violate a specific regulation;

(3) Disclosure would reveal classified information, unless appropriately declassified by the originating agency,

(4) Disclosure would reveal a confidential source or informant, unless the investigative agency and the source or informant have no objection,

(5) Disclosure would reveal investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes, and would interfere with enforcement proceedings or disclose investigative techniques and procedures the effectiveness of which would thereby be impaired,

(6) Disclosure would improperly reveal trade secrets without the owner's consent.

Plainly none of these factors apply. Factor 5 could apply but there is no question of interference here so I very much doubt that holds. Anyway, if DOJ refuses to release the information, the state can sue the DOJ in federal court to obtain it, in what is known as a Touhy action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top