I think it is likely that if they don't move to impeach Trump there may not be another election in his life time.
I'm saying "possibly" about just about everything these days rather than try to make predictions about what's likely because we have blown way past norms and precedents and so many things are in play. I keep thinking about the night in August 1789 when the French National Assembly started off voting for some things to pacify the revolting peasants and by morning had voted to abolish French feudalism, going much further than anyone had expected when they started. I don't know if we're at a point when something that extreme can happen, but again, I'm not predicting anything right now.
Heather Cox Richardson (a professor of 19th-century American history at Boston College who has been discussing current events in the US with a long-term historical perspective for some years now) put out a video yesterday in which she says she thinks things really changed on Thursday, citing these developments:
The House voted to extend for three years the ACA enhanced healthcare premium subsidies, with more than a dozen Republicans voting yes.
The House probably will vote to overturn two Trump vetoes
The relevant county AG in Minnesota wants to charge the ICE agent who shot Renee Good (she doesn't note that the FBI is completely stimying a local investigation, but I guess it's the AG's intent that's interesting to her).
Spotify's stock dropped 10% in a month following complaints about the ICE recruitment ads they were accepting, and now they've pulled the ICE ads.
The Senate has agreed to move forward with war powers resolution vote on Venezuela (she notes that the horse of out of that barn, but again, it indicates a willingness to put a check on Trump's goons).
The Senate voted to hang the plaque honoring the officers injured in defense of the Capitol on Jan 6.
The Senate has agreed to move forward with war powers resolution vote on Venezuela (she notes that the horse of out of that barn, but again, it indicates a willingness to put a check on Trump's goons).
If we're talking about the same resolution, it passed a day or two ago, with Republicans Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, Paul, and Young voting along with the Democrats.
From my knowledge, Paul was definitely to be expected, and probably Collins and Murkowski as well. Some Americans of my acquaintance were surprised that Hawley and Young voted yes.
Certainly those democratic governance structures which have the power to restrain the president need to start using it; otherwise, they are going to wake up one day soon and find they no longer have it.
The Senate has agreed to move forward with war powers resolution vote on Venezuela (she notes that the horse of out of that barn, but again, it indicates a willingness to put a check on Trump's goons).
If we're talking about the same resolution, it passed a day or two ago, with Republicans Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, Paul, and Young voting along with the Democrats.
They voted to advance a resolution, not on the resolution itself. There will be debate and another vote this next week. Two previous votes to advance a resolution have failed.
A perspective video of the shooting has been released. I assume they thought it would help them justify the situation, the woman in the car looks to be acting very calmly, and the ICE agent aggressively while using his phone to film.
Vance and Co have declared the video proof positive that the agent feared for his life. It led me to remember the time someone here was praising his book as an example of social realism and not - as I contended - that of an unscrupulous grifter.
The Senate has agreed to move forward with war powers resolution vote on Venezuela (she notes that the horse of out of that barn, but again, it indicates a willingness to put a check on Trump's goons).
If we're talking about the same resolution, it passed a day or two ago, with Republicans Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, Paul, and Young voting along with the Democrats.
They voted to advance a resolution, not on the resolution itself. There will be debate and another vote this next week. Two previous votes to advance a resolution have failed.
Vance and Co have declared the video proof positive that the agent feared for his life. It led me to remember the time someone here was praising his book as an example of social realism and not - as I contended - that of an unscrupulous grifter.
I'm speculating that was on the thread I had started a few years back, asking whether I should bother reading the copy I had purchased second-hand.
That thread actually dissuaded me from reading the book(which I subsequently lost), though not due to criticism of its veracity, but rather because the discussion of the book's style and content made it sound like slice-of-life writing(eg. Tropic Of Cancer), a genre I really don't care for.
Renee's last words to the ICE agent that was filming the confrontation was, "That's all right, Dude, I am not mad at you." It also shows her turning away from the agents before the shots were fired. I do not see her hitting anyone with her vehicle.
The most succinct and forthright commentary on this incident (and I saw @Ruth mentioned her) is by Heather Cox Richardson on Substack, Letters from an American. It seems that Renee Nicole Good was a legal observer: a volunteer trained to observe police conduct in case of future legal action. The irony...
On some angles it does look as if the vehicle did strike the agent and he did seem to limp a wee bit afterwards, perhaps because it struck his knee as the victim turned the wheel to drive away.
It also appears to show him drawing his pistol as Renee began to turn the wheel and before the vehicle picked up momentum.
It's known that the agent had been injured and hospitalised after being struck by a vehicle in a previous incident. So there are questions as to whether he should have been allowed back on duty so quickly.
All manner of questions suggest themselves. Why not fire a warning shot into the air? Why not shoot at the tyres?
Why shoot someone in the face?
I think I'm right in saying that there was one fatal shot and that two bullets went through or lodged in the vehicle.
But to shoot three times clearly suggests an intention to kill.
@MaryLouise - one wonders whether the training for such volunteers should include what to do when confronted with ill-disciplined and poorly trained paramilitary enforcement officers.
When I was a kid a friend got hold of a US police training manual which featured illustrations as to how to harm peacenik 'sit-down' protestors when lifting them off the ground in a way that could not be captured on film by journalists or photographers.
This was at the time of anti-Vietnam protests.
Clearly, Renee Good wasn't expecting to be shot in cold blood, otherwise she wouldn't have tried to drive away. I'd assumed she'd panicked but from what's now emerging that doesn't appear to be the case.
Observers are going to have to be extra vigilant when monitoring ICE agent activities. They've shown they are all too ready to use lethal force and that with the full backing of the President and Vice President, no questions asked.
'They are our guys. They can do no wrong.'
It comes to something when federal agents go about masked.
I can remember when the MAGA crowd were convinced Obama was going to send in federal agents to confiscate their guns.
I don't hear them bleating now those agents are shooting US citizens dead on the streets with the full support of the Whitehouse.
The footage I saw which looks like the agent may have been struck by the vehicle was taken from further down the street. It's difficult to tell but it does look as if the vehicle did make contact with the officer.
Which doesn't justify the use of lethal force. The vehicle had not gained sufficient momentum to inflict any serious damage, even if that was the driver's intention - which I very much doubt.
No, this is a case of Trump and the highly reprehensible Vance pre-emptively acting as judge and jury on an incident that ought to go to an independent enquiry but won't because neither of them want to accept the most likely findings of such an enquiry.
We all know Trump is a megalomaniac. Vance has no excuse for his behaviour beyond careerism and political ambition.
That old police manual story is very suspicious. For one, do you know how many different police forces there are in America? Nearly 18,000 law enforcement agencies by some estimates. No one police manual would represent all the different agency SOPs. Second, the manuals are subject to revision almost annually if not more often based on court decisions, changes in societal expectations, changes in proven police tactics and equipment, legal revisions.
There have been several law enforcement trainers who have been on TV interviews that have said current police procedures dictate when confronted with a moving car, move out of the car's path, and above all do not shoot into a moving vehicle, it can cause more serious damage. Get the license plate number and follow up later.
If I remember rightly it was some kind of federal document.
I dunno. The Nstional Guard?
Whoever it was who were tasked with removing Beatnik protestors.
It could have been some form of spoof 'black propaganda' from the left of course. But it looked pretty authentic, but then I was only a kid at the time.
I was struck by the illustrations. They showed clean-cut, chisel-drawed law enforcement officers confronted by hairy and lairy evil left-wing protestors.
There were graphic instructions on how to inflict pain on them without it attracting the attention of the wicked, evil liberal media.
The point is, whilst I don't doubt that State and municipal police officers and National Guardsmen and so on are generally highly professional and well trained, there was an element of 'let's dig those goddamn commie protestors in the ribs or jab a thumb up their goddamn pinko commie assholes in such a way that the goddamn pinko liberal press won't notice ...'
Or is that a stereotype?
The Apostle Paul warned that secular authorities 'didn't bear the sword for nothing.'
However we take that, it's reasonable to expect responsibility on the part of law enforcement officers.
We don't seem to be seeing that in the case of Trump's goons.
ICE agents may use firearms only when they reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and they are prohibited from firing at vehicles except under very narrow conditions. Their actions are governed by DHS-wide standards, ICE’s own Directive 19009.3, and the Firearms and Use of Force Handbook.
This rule exists because:
Bullets rarely stop a vehicle
Shooting a driver can cause the vehicle to become an uncontrolled weapon
Bystanders and officers are put at greater risk
There are only two reasons to fire into a moving vehicle. The first is someone inside is using a deadly weapon other than the vehicle, or
Second, the driver is purposely using the vehicle as a weapon.
On the other hand, there are also clear directives that say officers are not to stand in front of or behind a vehicle, but to the side. Obviously, Agent Ross ignored that directive.
Yes, it was an old example but it made the point that US law enforcement officers were trained how to harm protestors whilst appearing to gently escort them out of the way.
If it was a stereotype it's one they created themselves.
It was something of a tangent. The main points, of course, are the ones you've raised about ICE are not acting professionally nor adhering to accepted standards of law enforcement behaviour- to put it mildly.
Public Citizen reports that there were over 1,000 community ICE OUT NOW public protests today across the nation. There will likely be as more tomorrow.
There was one here in Pullman. I would say it was much larger than previous protests against the Trump Administration, though I am not good at estimating crowd size.
PZ Myers in rural Minnesota attended a protest in his nearby community of Cyrus (~300 residents mostly Republican). About a dozen protesters in -10°C weather and to quote: "the majority of the passers-by would wave or honk their horns for the cause". https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2026/01/10/i-didnt-get-shot/
Let's hope the protests remain peaceful, otherwise it gives Trump and Vance an excuse to say, 'I told you so. This is all about internal left-wing terrorism. The woman deserved to be shot and so does anyone else we deem to be on the wrong side in this one.'
I'm hearing that agent Ross said, 'You f***ing bitch,' as he shot the driver in the head.
I've long thought that Vance has no moral scruples for all his professed RC faith. Unless strong evidence emerges - and I see none so far - that the driver was intending to use lethal force against ICE officers then I find his comments reprehensible in the extreme.
He should resign, be impeached or stand trial for justifying the extra-judicial execution of his fellow US citizens.
I really don't know how he can sleep at night.
'He who sups with the Devil must have a long spoon.'
Vance's spoon has got shorter and shorter as time goes on.
If what some US Democrats speculate is true and Vance is planning some kind of mid-term take-over bid then things can only get worse.
'My father chastised you with whips but I will do so with scorpions.'
Being impeached will not force Trump out of office unless the Senate vote to convict him. That takes 2/3 of the Senate, 67 votes. The bean counters are saying that is next to impossible.
The Newsweek poll taken the day of the Good shooting shows the majority of those polled disapproved of the shooting, but it is more nuanced when you break it down by party lines. Read the report. Since this is the day of the shooting and more information and incidents have happened since, I would wonder how the reaction changes as time goes on.
Something that just occurred to me - there were several ICE officers on the scene, but was there anyone in overall control? Any superior officer giving orders?
Being impeached will not force Trump out of office unless the Senate vote to convict him. That takes 2/3 of the Senate, 67 votes. The bean counters are saying that is next to impossible.
The Newsweek poll taken the day of the Good shooting shows the majority of those polled disapproved of the shooting, but it is more nuanced when you break it down by party lines. Read the report. Since this is the day of the shooting and more information and incidents have happened since, I would wonder how the reaction changes as time goes on.
I can't see the report there for some reason but what you say makes sense. There is a video there from the ICE agent's perspective. From his phone? Which does seem to indicate that he was struck by the vehicle as the driver tried to drive off but it certainly doesn't look as if he was deliberately rammed.
There is a video there from the ICE agent's perspective. From his phone? Which does seem to indicate that he was struck by the vehicle as the driver tried to drive off but it certainly doesn't look as if he was deliberately rammed.
Yes, from his phone, and no, he wasn't struck by the vehicle. No idea how you got that from what you saw.
Being impeached will not force Trump out of office unless the Senate vote to convict him. That takes 2/3 of the Senate, 67 votes.
Pedantic point: It takes 2/3 of senators present, so 67 votes if all 100 senators are present. As said before, it is certainly reasonable to assume all senators would be present for votes on articles of impeachment of a president, but it’s always possible that one or more senators might be too ill to be present or that one or more Senate seats might be vacant due to death or other reasons.
The video (at least, the portion that's been shown here) doesn't show whether the ICE agent was struck by the car. At the moment when the car either hit him or drove past him the phone was not pointed towards the car, it appears to have been put down (presumably at the point he drew his gun).
The video (at least, the portion that's been shown here) doesn't show whether the ICE agent was struck by the car. At the moment when the car either hit him or drove past him the phone was not pointed towards the car, it appears to have been put down (presumably at the point he drew his gun).
He had his gun drawn while his phone was in his hand, at least the first shot was taken with one hand.
There is a video there from the ICE agent's perspective. From his phone? Which does seem to indicate that he was struck by the vehicle as the driver tried to drive off but it certainly doesn't look as if he was deliberately rammed.
Yes, from his phone, and no, he wasn't struck by the vehicle. No idea how you got that from what you saw.
It looked to me as though the phone was knocked or dropped out of the way and there was a noise as if the car had bumped into him- although it certainly wasn't going very fast and it certainly didn't appear to be deliberately aimed at him.
Please don't misunderstand me. If the car did make contact with the agent's knee, as has been reported in some accounts, it appears to have been more by accident than design and the vehicle had gained insufficient momentum to do abh real damage.
He did appear to limp a bit then straighten himself up in one video I saw. I am not saying it definitely did hit him, but in two videos I've seen now it appears that it may have done - but not with sufficient force to suggest that this was a deliberate attempt to cause bodily harm.
I don't believe it was.
Also, from other angles itbicclear that he drew his pistol as soon as the driver began to turn the wheel and before the car gained any momentum. It can't have been doing any more than 2mph when the shots were fired.
I'd suggest the bottom line is as follows:
If the car did not brush or strike the officer he had no grounds to open fire.
If the car had accidentally brushed or struck him - which looked a possibility on some footage - he still had no grounds for opening fire as it clearly wasn't deliberate nor was his life in danger nor the lives of his colleagues.
It's also been reported that a doctor was prevented from offering medical attention and that an ICE agent was later seen trampling on floral tributes laid at the scene.
The only people whose lives were in danger were the observers and protestors and any passers-by who might have been hit by reckless and unjustifiable shooting by the ICE agent.
Apologies, 'and the vehicle hadn't gained sufficient momentum to do any real damage.'
I am not exonerating the agent nor condoning the shooting.
Even if he was brushed lightly by the car as it pulled away, he had no grounds to open fire.
He had no grounds for drawing his pistol in the first place.
This wasn't a speeding vehicle aimed deliberately to kill or injure. It was one slowly swinging out from a static position. It would have needed far greater acceleration to have posed any threat whatsoever.
All of which explains why the administration is refusing to countenance an independent enquiry or allow the Minneapolis police to investigate the incident.
Because they clearly know that the findings would subvert their false narrative.
If I was standing beside a car and it was moving, my instinct wouldn't be to shoot, but to jump back. He didn't do that, he fired to kill and referred to the driver with a contemptuous insult.
Killing someone while they're operating a moving vehicle is not a safe thing to do. And he wasn't in its direct path. The government's narrative, to me, just does not hold up.
Here is a frame by frame analysis of the shooting of Renee Good using a combination of Ross' video and another video taken by someone on the street. It does appear Good may have brushed Ross' knee, but it is still unclear why Ross moved back in front of Good's car. Was it so he could intentionally get hit by the car, justifying his use of deadly force?
@Gamma Gamaliel while it appears Good's car is not moving fast, the laws of physics will tell you the momentum of a larger/heavier object impacting on a smaller lighter object that is relatively stationary there can be quite a bit of damage to the lighter object.
Unfortunately, the software of SOF will not allow me to put the whole equation on how this would work, but you can look up Newton's law of momentum conservation to get the idea.
Assume Good's vehicle at 1100 kg going at 3 km/h impacts Ross at 113 kg standing stationary.
Of course, it was not a direct impact, but a simple brush against the knee at the most.
The only way we can tell what actually happened is for a full impartial inquest with the cooperation of both the federal and city governments. But, with Trump, this is not very likely to happen until he is out of office.
The fact is that he acted as judge and jury and shot her at point blank range, leaving a dead woman at the wheel of a moving vehicle.
And the authorities who should know better are trying to justify it.
Yes. Kristi Noem seems to be sticking to her story.
@Gramps49 - yes, I fully accept that even a slowly moving vehicle would cause someone a nasty bump. I've mentioned before, it did look as though the agent had to stretch or flex his knee afterwards- and as he'd previously suffered injury when trying to stop a vehicle he may well have been jumpy.
Which doesn't explain why he then placed himself in front of the vehicle and used lethal force.
I wouldn't think he'd have had time to coldly calculate, 'Right, if I stand in the way of the car and shoot her it will look as if she was deliberately trying to ram me ...'
I suspect it was more a combination of spite, contempt for the protestors/observers, poor judgement and training and hot-headedness plus a 'might is right' impression that possession of a lethal weapon entitles you to use it.
She hurt his knee. He shot her dead.
I agree that an independent enquiry is required but that won't happen while Trump, Vance and Noem are in positions of power and authority. Shame on them.
I am not sure whether you will be able to see this outside the UK, but it is The Marsh Family's melancholy reinterpretation of the Battle Hymn of the Republic. There are at least three threads I could have posted this on, but at the moment, it is this thread that is the most active, and there is a whole verse about what has happened in Minnesota.
A new video has emerged showing what happened in the three minutes before ICE agents confronted Good. It shows Good in the middle of the street honking her horn apparently as a way of warning neighbors ICE agents were on the street. This seems to back up HHS Noem's claim Good was harassing them, but I do not see it that way. She seems to be warning people.
It still does not excuse shooting Good in the face.
ICE went door-to-door in Minneapolis this weekend. My neighborhood; Southside where Good was killed and Roosevelt high school sits; Northside; St. Paul; the suburbs. They're going into businesses and asking about "hiring practices". Immigrant-owned businesses are shutting down. Schools are back in session but Minneapolis Public Schools are offering remote learning for families who opt in. Other school districts are following suit.
The fact is that he acted as judge and jury and shot her at point blank range, leaving a dead woman at the wheel of a moving vehicle.
And the authorities who should know better are trying to justify it.
I do think they know better. I think they're doing this on purpose because they want to justify the killing of political enemies.
This is a disgusting case of "it's not a flaw, it's a feature!"
ICE went door-to-door in Minneapolis this weekend. My neighborhood; Southside where Good was killed and Roosevelt high school sits; Northside; St. Paul; the suburbs. They're going into businesses and asking about "hiring practices". Immigrant-owned businesses are shutting down. Schools are back in session but Minneapolis Public Schools are offering remote learning for families who opt in. Other school districts are following suit.
All manner of questions suggest themselves. Why not fire a warning shot into the air? Why not shoot at the tyres?
Why shoot someone in the face?
I think I'm right in saying that there was one fatal shot and that two bullets went through or lodged in the vehicle.
But to shoot three times clearly suggests an intention to kill.
If you shoot, you shoot to stop. Firing one bullet and then waiting to see what happens isn't really a thing.
The first statement is true, of course, because of the corollary. If you do not need to shoot to stop, you do not shoot.
In this case, I just don't see any reasonable argument that could support the claim that this was a shooting in self-defense. As everyone has noted, the aim of self-defense is achieved by stepping out of the way slightly. By contrast, how exactly is shooting the driver supposed to defend anyone?
Imagine the ICE employee was standing directly in front of the car, rather than to the side, so he couldn't easily step to the side. How does shooting someone who is driving towards you at point blank range stop their car from hitting you? It doesn't. You kill the driver, but the car still runs you down. The range is just too close for shooting the driver to be a reasonable option.
The fact is that he acted as judge and jury and shot her at point blank range, leaving a dead woman at the wheel of a moving vehicle.
And the authorities who should know better are trying to justify it.
I do think they know better. I think they're doing this on purpose because they want to justify the killing of political enemies.
This is a disgusting case of "it's not a flaw, it's a feature!"
Hmm. Reminds me of a dictum of Nikolai Krylenko - "We must execute not only the guilty. Execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more"....
One thing I've learned about guns is that you should never fire a gun at a target unless you're committed to killing the target, whether it's human or animal.
The human body is full of arteries and if you bust one open, it doesn't take long to bleed out. And guns aren't that accurate in real life.
I'd agree, there's no way this could be framed as "self defense." At the absolute best it's an appalling failure of discipline and ought to be disciplined accordingly, on an organizational level.
Sure, I get that @Leorning Cniht and wasn't saying that the agent should have shot once then waited to see what happened. He shouldn't have shot at all. And yes, if anyone uses a weapon it's generally with the intention to kill.
The US administration is pointing to the fact that the fatal bullet went through the windscreen and not through the passenger window as some earlier reports suggested. Therefore it must have been fired in self-defence as the vehicle was driving towards the agent. So they claim.
But as @Gramps49 has observed, even if that were the case then shooting the driver dead wasn't going to stop the vehicle. As was tragically seen it gained momentum and crashed.
My brother tells me he's seen some pretty sick stuff online posted by MAGA-loons gloating about this killing - much of it homophobic and offensive in the extreme.
Vance is saying that the 'left-wing press' out to be ashamed of themselves.
If anyone needs to hang their heads in shame it should be Trump, Vance and Noem.
Yes, Good was beeping her horn, yes her wife did raise her voice and talk back to the ICE agents. Good does look to have clipped the agent as she tried to drive away.
Does that justify a fatal shooting?
I don't think so and I'm sure the administration know that too.
They don't seriously believe this was a justifiable shooting on the grounds of self-defence. They think it's no more than protestors deserve.
You do not shoot into the air. A bullet that goes up will come down with as much impact as it came out of the gun and you have no idea where it will land. Shooting at the tires can be risky too because of ricochet off the metal or off the pavement.
I suspect it was more a combination of spite, contempt for the protestors/observers, poor judgement and training and hot-headedness plus a 'might is right' impression that possession of a lethal weapon entitles you to use it.
He's a ten year DHS vet and a firearms instructor who had served in the military, yet when it came down to it he took multiple shots with a single hand.
Comments
I'm saying "possibly" about just about everything these days rather than try to make predictions about what's likely because we have blown way past norms and precedents and so many things are in play. I keep thinking about the night in August 1789 when the French National Assembly started off voting for some things to pacify the revolting peasants and by morning had voted to abolish French feudalism, going much further than anyone had expected when they started. I don't know if we're at a point when something that extreme can happen, but again, I'm not predicting anything right now.
Heather Cox Richardson (a professor of 19th-century American history at Boston College who has been discussing current events in the US with a long-term historical perspective for some years now) put out a video yesterday in which she says she thinks things really changed on Thursday, citing these developments:
If we're talking about the same resolution, it passed a day or two ago, with Republicans Collins, Hawley, Murkowski, Paul, and Young voting along with the Democrats.
From my knowledge, Paul was definitely to be expected, and probably Collins and Murkowski as well. Some Americans of my acquaintance were surprised that Hawley and Young voted yes.
They voted to advance a resolution, not on the resolution itself. There will be debate and another vote this next week. Two previous votes to advance a resolution have failed.
Vance and Co have declared the video proof positive that the agent feared for his life. It led me to remember the time someone here was praising his book as an example of social realism and not - as I contended - that of an unscrupulous grifter.
Ah, thanks.
I'm speculating that was on the thread I had started a few years back, asking whether I should bother reading the copy I had purchased second-hand.
That thread actually dissuaded me from reading the book(which I subsequently lost), though not due to criticism of its veracity, but rather because the discussion of the book's style and content made it sound like slice-of-life writing(eg. Tropic Of Cancer), a genre I really don't care for.
It also appears to show him drawing his pistol as Renee began to turn the wheel and before the vehicle picked up momentum.
It's known that the agent had been injured and hospitalised after being struck by a vehicle in a previous incident. So there are questions as to whether he should have been allowed back on duty so quickly.
All manner of questions suggest themselves. Why not fire a warning shot into the air? Why not shoot at the tyres?
Why shoot someone in the face?
I think I'm right in saying that there was one fatal shot and that two bullets went through or lodged in the vehicle.
But to shoot three times clearly suggests an intention to kill.
When I was a kid a friend got hold of a US police training manual which featured illustrations as to how to harm peacenik 'sit-down' protestors when lifting them off the ground in a way that could not be captured on film by journalists or photographers.
This was at the time of anti-Vietnam protests.
Clearly, Renee Good wasn't expecting to be shot in cold blood, otherwise she wouldn't have tried to drive away. I'd assumed she'd panicked but from what's now emerging that doesn't appear to be the case.
Observers are going to have to be extra vigilant when monitoring ICE agent activities. They've shown they are all too ready to use lethal force and that with the full backing of the President and Vice President, no questions asked.
'They are our guys. They can do no wrong.'
It comes to something when federal agents go about masked.
I can remember when the MAGA crowd were convinced Obama was going to send in federal agents to confiscate their guns.
I don't hear them bleating now those agents are shooting US citizens dead on the streets with the full support of the Whitehouse.
Largely because he was holding his phone in his left hand and it’s being mistaken for a body cam.
At least one ICE officer was instructing them to drive away.
Which doesn't justify the use of lethal force. The vehicle had not gained sufficient momentum to inflict any serious damage, even if that was the driver's intention - which I very much doubt.
No, this is a case of Trump and the highly reprehensible Vance pre-emptively acting as judge and jury on an incident that ought to go to an independent enquiry but won't because neither of them want to accept the most likely findings of such an enquiry.
We all know Trump is a megalomaniac. Vance has no excuse for his behaviour beyond careerism and political ambition.
There have been several law enforcement trainers who have been on TV interviews that have said current police procedures dictate when confronted with a moving car, move out of the car's path, and above all do not shoot into a moving vehicle, it can cause more serious damage. Get the license plate number and follow up later.
I dunno. The Nstional Guard?
Whoever it was who were tasked with removing Beatnik protestors.
It could have been some form of spoof 'black propaganda' from the left of course. But it looked pretty authentic, but then I was only a kid at the time.
I was struck by the illustrations. They showed clean-cut, chisel-drawed law enforcement officers confronted by hairy and lairy evil left-wing protestors.
There were graphic instructions on how to inflict pain on them without it attracting the attention of the wicked, evil liberal media.
The point is, whilst I don't doubt that State and municipal police officers and National Guardsmen and so on are generally highly professional and well trained, there was an element of 'let's dig those goddamn commie protestors in the ribs or jab a thumb up their goddamn pinko commie assholes in such a way that the goddamn pinko liberal press won't notice ...'
Or is that a stereotype?
The Apostle Paul warned that secular authorities 'didn't bear the sword for nothing.'
However we take that, it's reasonable to expect responsibility on the part of law enforcement officers.
We don't seem to be seeing that in the case of Trump's goons.
Bottom line
ICE agents may use firearms only when they reasonably believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and they are prohibited from firing at vehicles except under very narrow conditions. Their actions are governed by DHS-wide standards, ICE’s own Directive 19009.3, and the Firearms and Use of Force Handbook.
This rule exists because:
Bullets rarely stop a vehicle
Shooting a driver can cause the vehicle to become an uncontrolled weapon
Bystanders and officers are put at greater risk
There are only two reasons to fire into a moving vehicle. The first is someone inside is using a deadly weapon other than the vehicle, or
Second, the driver is purposely using the vehicle as a weapon.
On the other hand, there are also clear directives that say officers are not to stand in front of or behind a vehicle, but to the side. Obviously, Agent Ross ignored that directive.
If it was a stereotype it's one they created themselves.
It was something of a tangent. The main points, of course, are the ones you've raised about ICE are not acting professionally nor adhering to accepted standards of law enforcement behaviour- to put it mildly.
There was one here in Pullman. I would say it was much larger than previous protests against the Trump Administration, though I am not good at estimating crowd size.
I'm hearing that agent Ross said, 'You f***ing bitch,' as he shot the driver in the head.
I've long thought that Vance has no moral scruples for all his professed RC faith. Unless strong evidence emerges - and I see none so far - that the driver was intending to use lethal force against ICE officers then I find his comments reprehensible in the extreme.
He should resign, be impeached or stand trial for justifying the extra-judicial execution of his fellow US citizens.
I really don't know how he can sleep at night.
'He who sups with the Devil must have a long spoon.'
Vance's spoon has got shorter and shorter as time goes on.
If what some US Democrats speculate is true and Vance is planning some kind of mid-term take-over bid then things can only get worse.
'My father chastised you with whips but I will do so with scorpions.'
The Newsweek poll taken the day of the Good shooting shows the majority of those polled disapproved of the shooting, but it is more nuanced when you break it down by party lines. Read the report. Since this is the day of the shooting and more information and incidents have happened since, I would wonder how the reaction changes as time goes on.
I can't see the report there for some reason but what you say makes sense. There is a video there from the ICE agent's perspective. From his phone? Which does seem to indicate that he was struck by the vehicle as the driver tried to drive off but it certainly doesn't look as if he was deliberately rammed.
He had his gun drawn while his phone was in his hand, at least the first shot was taken with one hand.
It looked to me as though the phone was knocked or dropped out of the way and there was a noise as if the car had bumped into him- although it certainly wasn't going very fast and it certainly didn't appear to be deliberately aimed at him.
Please don't misunderstand me. If the car did make contact with the agent's knee, as has been reported in some accounts, it appears to have been more by accident than design and the vehicle had gained insufficient momentum to do abh real damage.
He did appear to limp a bit then straighten himself up in one video I saw. I am not saying it definitely did hit him, but in two videos I've seen now it appears that it may have done - but not with sufficient force to suggest that this was a deliberate attempt to cause bodily harm.
I don't believe it was.
Also, from other angles itbicclear that he drew his pistol as soon as the driver began to turn the wheel and before the car gained any momentum. It can't have been doing any more than 2mph when the shots were fired.
I'd suggest the bottom line is as follows:
If the car did not brush or strike the officer he had no grounds to open fire.
If the car had accidentally brushed or struck him - which looked a possibility on some footage - he still had no grounds for opening fire as it clearly wasn't deliberate nor was his life in danger nor the lives of his colleagues.
It's also been reported that a doctor was prevented from offering medical attention and that an ICE agent was later seen trampling on floral tributes laid at the scene.
The only people whose lives were in danger were the observers and protestors and any passers-by who might have been hit by reckless and unjustifiable shooting by the ICE agent.
I am not exonerating the agent nor condoning the shooting.
Even if he was brushed lightly by the car as it pulled away, he had no grounds to open fire.
He had no grounds for drawing his pistol in the first place.
This wasn't a speeding vehicle aimed deliberately to kill or injure. It was one slowly swinging out from a static position. It would have needed far greater acceleration to have posed any threat whatsoever.
All of which explains why the administration is refusing to countenance an independent enquiry or allow the Minneapolis police to investigate the incident.
Because they clearly know that the findings would subvert their false narrative.
Killing someone while they're operating a moving vehicle is not a safe thing to do. And he wasn't in its direct path. The government's narrative, to me, just does not hold up.
And that really ought to be common sense.
@Gamma Gamaliel while it appears Good's car is not moving fast, the laws of physics will tell you the momentum of a larger/heavier object impacting on a smaller lighter object that is relatively stationary there can be quite a bit of damage to the lighter object.
Unfortunately, the software of SOF will not allow me to put the whole equation on how this would work, but you can look up Newton's law of momentum conservation to get the idea.
Assume Good's vehicle at 1100 kg going at 3 km/h impacts Ross at 113 kg standing stationary.
Of course, it was not a direct impact, but a simple brush against the knee at the most.
The only way we can tell what actually happened is for a full impartial inquest with the cooperation of both the federal and city governments. But, with Trump, this is not very likely to happen until he is out of office.
And the authorities who should know better are trying to justify it.
@Gramps49 - yes, I fully accept that even a slowly moving vehicle would cause someone a nasty bump. I've mentioned before, it did look as though the agent had to stretch or flex his knee afterwards- and as he'd previously suffered injury when trying to stop a vehicle he may well have been jumpy.
Which doesn't explain why he then placed himself in front of the vehicle and used lethal force.
I wouldn't think he'd have had time to coldly calculate, 'Right, if I stand in the way of the car and shoot her it will look as if she was deliberately trying to ram me ...'
I suspect it was more a combination of spite, contempt for the protestors/observers, poor judgement and training and hot-headedness plus a 'might is right' impression that possession of a lethal weapon entitles you to use it.
She hurt his knee. He shot her dead.
I agree that an independent enquiry is required but that won't happen while Trump, Vance and Noem are in positions of power and authority. Shame on them.
Fast work, too, on the part of this talented family, whose songs will surely live on when Trump is dust.
It still does not excuse shooting Good in the face.
This is a good news source if you're interested. https://www.mprnews.org
I do think they know better. I think they're doing this on purpose because they want to justify the killing of political enemies.
This is a disgusting case of "it's not a flaw, it's a feature!"
Gods have mercy. This stinks, it really does.
Take care @amybo, but thanks for your front-line reporting.
If you shoot, you shoot to stop. Firing one bullet and then waiting to see what happens isn't really a thing.
The first statement is true, of course, because of the corollary. If you do not need to shoot to stop, you do not shoot.
In this case, I just don't see any reasonable argument that could support the claim that this was a shooting in self-defense. As everyone has noted, the aim of self-defense is achieved by stepping out of the way slightly. By contrast, how exactly is shooting the driver supposed to defend anyone?
Imagine the ICE employee was standing directly in front of the car, rather than to the side, so he couldn't easily step to the side. How does shooting someone who is driving towards you at point blank range stop their car from hitting you? It doesn't. You kill the driver, but the car still runs you down. The range is just too close for shooting the driver to be a reasonable option.
Hmm. Reminds me of a dictum of Nikolai Krylenko - "We must execute not only the guilty. Execution of the innocent will impress the masses even more"....
The human body is full of arteries and if you bust one open, it doesn't take long to bleed out. And guns aren't that accurate in real life.
I'd agree, there's no way this could be framed as "self defense." At the absolute best it's an appalling failure of discipline and ought to be disciplined accordingly, on an organizational level.
The US administration is pointing to the fact that the fatal bullet went through the windscreen and not through the passenger window as some earlier reports suggested. Therefore it must have been fired in self-defence as the vehicle was driving towards the agent. So they claim.
But as @Gramps49 has observed, even if that were the case then shooting the driver dead wasn't going to stop the vehicle. As was tragically seen it gained momentum and crashed.
My brother tells me he's seen some pretty sick stuff online posted by MAGA-loons gloating about this killing - much of it homophobic and offensive in the extreme.
Vance is saying that the 'left-wing press' out to be ashamed of themselves.
If anyone needs to hang their heads in shame it should be Trump, Vance and Noem.
Yes, Good was beeping her horn, yes her wife did raise her voice and talk back to the ICE agents. Good does look to have clipped the agent as she tried to drive away.
Does that justify a fatal shooting?
I don't think so and I'm sure the administration know that too.
They don't seriously believe this was a justifiable shooting on the grounds of self-defence. They think it's no more than protestors deserve.
Shame. Shame on them.
He's a ten year DHS vet and a firearms instructor who had served in the military, yet when it came down to it he took multiple shots with a single hand.