> I synced up the video from the Johnathan Ross and a bystander to help show what was happening when he fumbled his camera. He was already out of the way at that point and already had his gun drawn. It wasn't him being hit, it was him shooting Renee Good.
Watching the synced videos, I'm realizing now the sound of "OOHHH" does not come from the shooter, but afterwards. It's another officer. I no longer have the impression of an officer surprised, threatened and reacting to danger.
You can clearly see on the POV-cam the driver's hands turning the steering wheel. She's trying to get out of that situation and drive away. That's clear, and it gives the shooter time to step out of the way.
Well, the shooter is not having it. And despite there being a civilian on the other side of the car, and officers all around the car, he choose to kill the driver, discharging his weapon. Felony Obstruction becomes punishable by death.
_"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"_ – Mario Savio
People with this level of lack of constraint and trigger-happiness shouldn't possess firearms or the authority to interact with society in a law-enforcement (or immigration) capacity.
The part that gets me is that even if you stipulate that this man’s life was in jeopardy and that the driver’s actions justify using lethal force (which I don’t agree with, but just go with me for a second), his actions clearly did not make himself or anyone else safer. Just look at what happened to the car after he shot her, it swerved off out of control and rammed another car. It should be obvious that a car without a driver is much more unpredictable and dangerous that a car with a driver, so how can you believe that killing the driver was the appropriate response.
Even if you think he was justified in his use of force, everyone should be able to see that how he used force was at best inappropriate. Not being able to admit that is a sign that you’re letting your bias overrule what you’re seeing.
This is the most critical recent "code" development. In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Barnes v. Felix that courts must look at the "totality of circumstances" leading up to a shooting.
The Rule: If an officer recklessly steps in front of a vehicle (creating the danger themselves), a court can now rule that their subsequent use of force was unreasonable because they "precipitated" the threat.
Impact: This case effectively ended the "moment of threat" defense, where officers used to argue, "It doesn't matter how I got in front of the car; I shot because it was about to hit me." Now, the law says: "If you put yourself there unnecessarily, you are liable."
The cruelty is the point. They want to appear like strong-men dealing with criminals and the base goes along with it. In reality, they're quite weak and know this is very unpopular so they've dedicated press conferences along with the VPs time and the President's time to calling the victim a domestic terrorist.
He wasn't trying to keep anyone safe. He was trying to get revenge for being bumped with the car (which was his fault because he walked in front of it). She bumped me, so I shot her. People with this quick of a temper make great gestapo agents as they make sure the population knows not to mess with the gestapo.
> Did you watch my links? Think they should be pointing their weapons at those people?
No, they shouldn't. Those were fuckups, same as the killing of Renee. Provoking such mistakes is the exact purpose of all that obstruction and harassment, so that they can be stripped of context (both your links combined sum to 15 seconds of real footage) and used to delegitimize resistance to mass immigration.
> Right and wrong didn’t change because you’re scared.
Nice bait and switch. First you claim the admin wants these bad PR mistakes and that they're the ones creating confrontation, then, shown evidence that the anti-immigration-limits side is guilty of not just creating confrontation, but outright terrorism, you switch to talking about abstract right and wrong. Please learn to distinguish between 'justification' and 'explanation'.
So do you concede these look more like the kind of mistakes one would expect when trying to make up for ~40 years of not enforcing immigration law in one 4 year term, or do you persist in claiming this is a deliberate provocation conspiracy from the current administration?
"Cruelty is the point, right and wrong don't change" when your enemies make a mistake, but when a twice-deported immigrant kills someone, or campus debaters are assassinated, or someone is stabbed to the sound of "got that white girl", or ICE agents are killed, oh well these things just happen, nobody is to blame, least of all the people encouraging it, libeling the victim group, and no "expert" shows up to talk about "stochastic terrorism".
If you want to talk about "the rule of law" and not be a screaming hypocrite, you need to start with the highest law in the land which is the US Constitution. It has a few things to say about both the right of us citizens to criticize our government, and our right to not be violently assaulted and summarily executed by government tyrants. This is not surprising, as it was written in the aftermath of similar historical events which kicked off the founding of our country based around individual liberty and limited government. Perhaps try reading some history about our hard-won civil liberties instead of freebasing so much social media that you want to throw away what remains of those liberties just to spite your fellow citizens, whom social media has also made you hate.
"You're not allowed to enforce the border until the police don't make any mistakes or you're a hypocrite."
How about instead of your proposed "start with", we do both concurrently? Deport every illegal, and hold police abuses to account? I'd be very willing to take this deal. Would you?
It is a dehumanizing Kafkaesque term whose use professes ignorance. But pragmatically, do you think your comment helps convince anyone of your position?
I'm personally ambivalent on illegal immigration in the abstract. But I am of the opinion that even if reforming illegal immigration is someone's pet issue, there are still many reasons they should be opposing the current regime's approach that seemingly requires summarily deporting legal immigrants, unrestrained cruelty against fellow human beings, and now what is shaping up to look an awful lot like the premeditated murder of an American citizen and mother.
In a hypothetical where both could be accomplished at the same time, equitably and humanely, most certainly yes.
Those qualifications are important, lest either issue just be used as a rallying cry to inflict cruelty, pretend token reforms, or otherwise do half the job. If you'd like to respond constructively, I can elaborate.
Also of course we live in the real world where we can't atomically commit to perform both. This makes heuristics highly important. And if this ongoing topic doesn't grate against your own large-context sense of what is more fundamental to the kernel of society, this particular incident should at least run afoul of a small-context concern of when a government is killing its own citizens.
These are strong feelings. I can appreciate strong feelings. I would also keep in mind that there are only 20k to 30k total ICE agents in the entire country (as of this comment). The federal government may not rein them in, but there are enough other humans on US soil to do so. They can also be pursued for the rest of their lives using documentation and evidence after this administration ends, so collecting and preserving that historical record will be important and relevant work.
In the interim, protect yourself and your community.
Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court. Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi).
The only chance any of them see justice is if the US is invaded. Even in a Nazi/SS scenario, only about 0.03% of the SS were convicted and very few of those the rank and file are analogous to the ICE on the street.
If you mean extra-judicial punishment, then the chance of that is also zero. The bravest we have representing us is on the street, and even of those all they did was shout "murderer" then back off and let their friend bleed out when the police said they were not allowed to render aid. So basically it is safe to say of those of us speaking who were not on the street already, that we would do even less than that.
Best case scenario is the people vote "lets not do that again" and we actually don't. But in no case do the murderers actually find accountability.
> Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court.
Removal doesn't change the substantive law applied, only the venue of the trial. Supremacy Clause immunity will be litigated, of course.
> Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi).
The majority of the delay in the Horiuchi case was the 5 year gap between the events and state charges being filed. If state charges are filed in this case, I don’t see much likelihood there will be that kind of delay first.
The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem.
IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court when the pardon is for the exact thing being considered (or possibly, a la Hunter Biden, pardoned of everything a federal criminal court could ever consider).
> The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem.
Its not. A federal pardon Constitutionally can only affects federal offenses, not state offenses. That Congress has created a mechanism by which federal courts may try some state offenses does not convert them into federal offenses.
> IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court
Because the Constitution doesn't give the President the power to pardon anything but offenses against the federal government. It is the sovereign against which an offense is alleged, not the court in which it is tried, that matters.
Yes you and your sister comment are claiming it is only a venue change. A couple points
(1) Per my response to your sister comment[] the inapplicability of federal pardons to cases removed federal courts hasn't actually been decided by the courts. Some scholars seem you are right, although so far I've done the favors for both of you by pulling up the most readily available citation I could find since you furnished none of your own.
(2) Even if you are correct, you are merely moving my goal post of my OG comment claim, which was that there could be jurisdiction removal, to one where you are suggesting it doesn't matter and the goal post is now whether a pardon applies in the case of jurisdiction removal. I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing.
> I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing.
The reason is the perception that, in times of high state-federal friction (which is when most attempted state prosecutions of federal agents, and therefore both removal and Supremeacy Clause immunity cases occur) state judges are more likely act with bias against the federal government and federal agent defendants. It’s not because of the fedeal pardon power (which has never been an issue in such cases, as you yourself implicitly note) magically becomes applicable.
There's also an economy of justice concern, since it usually cuts out a couple levels of appeal on federal questions, (instead of trial court, state intermediate appellate court, state supreme court, federal circuit, and US supreme court, the chain is just trial court, federal circuit, US supreme court) and these type of cases always involve federal questions (every case where removal is an issue due to a federal officer being involved is also a case where the parameters of Supremacy Clause immunity are going to be an active issue, and there are possibly other federal issues involved.)
The president can only pardon crimes against the United States. Even if removed to federal court, state charges remain state charges and the judge & jury must follow state laws. Only the venue changes, with the intent being that the federal judge will potentially serve as a more neutral arbiter.
Hmm... this is far outside my domain but apparently there has been no litigation deciding on this yet[].
While no court has conclusively decided this issue, precedent and the structure of the Constitution dictate that answer is “no.” The availability of an immunity defense arising under federal law does not change which sovereign is prosecuting the offense. The president may not pardon such offenses even when they have been removed to federal court. This stands in sharp contrast to convictions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, which allows federal courts to incorporate state criminal law to cover acts committed on federal land not otherwise covered by federal law (for example, a domestic assault that takes place on a military base), and which may be pardoned by the president. Those are federal offenses—“against the United States”—because the federal statute borrows the law of the state surrounding the federal enclave, and they are prosecuted by the Justice Department. The charging documents themselves arise under federal law for purposes of Article III.
Your and their argument is compelling, but so is the counter argument IMO. Seems like something that might be tested at some point. If you have any further citations where a court has decided on this would love to look over it.
And if it were true that he was at risk of being hurt by the car, shooting the driver would be the last thing to do. Look what happened when he shot her, she lost control, accelerated, and ran into a parked car
Vouching for your statement here just so I can call this cop a fearful loser.
I am a combat veteran who served during GWOT.
This guy should be stripped of all pay and rank, and barred from any police department in the US. His inability to control his own fear got someone killed. He is solely responsible for a death and wrecklessly endangering others. The passengers in the car should also be able to sue him until he is penniless. The state should go after him for wrongful death.
Dude put himself in front of the vehicle which is contrary to LE training. Then he fired three times, twice on the side for good measure. It was clear she had backed up to leave after another agent grabbed her door and was reaching into the vehicle. Contrary directions were yelled at her. ICE has no business enforcing traffic laws on citizens.
> This video unambiguously shows the car accelerating towards the officer
It unambiguously shows her steering hard in the opposite direction of her murderer, at very low speed. She was very clearly not trying to hit anybody.
> You can't obstruct federal law enforcement, refuse lawful commands
Sure, those things are illegal. But to insinuate that the the punishment should be death at the scene rather than having guilt and punishment decided in court is abhorrent in the extreme.
Are you suggesting hitting a federal agent when not trying to hit them after fleeing a lawful order is not sufficient to show self defense?
She literally hit him. Gunning it towards an officer after being repeatedly asked to exit your vehicle, so you've racked up 2 felonies even before you hit the officer. Obstructing federal law enforcement and fleeing.
>Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent.
>"That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.
It is trigger-happy because there was no good reason to draw the weapon or shoot at all. Shooting the woman did not do anything to stop the car, to the contrary it resulted in the car accelerating and hitting another vehicle.
He could have stepped aside instead of drawing his weapon and there wouldn't have been any issue. He also shouldn't have walked around the car that way, that was entirely unnecessary and dangerous.
The woman is clearly distracted by the other ICE officer, that's just an all around dangerous situation they created entirely unnecessarily.
I think the 'good reason' he had was that 7 months ago he was dragged by a car, used a taser twice, and got roughed up.
He probably spent awhile in the hospital pondering what happened. He probably spent time talking to his ICE buddies. About his injuries. About using the taser. About how much he wished he had used his sidearm instead of his taser. And his buddies encouraging him. His buddies encouraging him, "next time don't be so kind with the tazer." He thought about what he would do "next time."
He was fantasizing about "punishing" the guy who dragged him. He fantasized about that for months. He "lost" the last fight and walked away with more injuries than the other guy. Got to even the score.
He evened the score. He won. And he will get away with it.
There is no Karma. He is victorious, and indeed, now placed upon the mantle by the administration as a hero who settled a score against "domestic terrorism."
Taking your framing at face value (I disagree that the videos show this, but lets assume they do). Does shooting someone who is operating a vehicle aimed at you "end the threat"? What happened after the officer shot the driver? Did the car become more or less controlled?
Your first argument was "he's not trigger happy, he only shot her 1 or 2 times" (it was 3 times, by the way). And he "did it in under a second". None of that means he is not trigger happy. Trigger happy means he is inclined to use his weapon in situations where it is unwarranted and may escalate the situation. That is exactly what happened. He turned a woman operating a car into a dead body operating a car on a public street. In no way did he handle the situation correctly.
Was she fleeing, or trying to use her car as a weapon?
> In any case you can watch a solid dozen video sources that show her reversing and targeting this office and hitting him.
I don't think that is true. I've watched a lot of the footage. I even watched enough to know how many bullets were fired! That seems like more knowledge than you possess of the situation.
Last question: Do you believe this woman is a domestic terrorist?
Is there a threat created afterwards by a car being piloted by a corpse or no? If the car is being piloted by a corpse, why did it not continue on course and run over the ICE agent standing "in front of the car"?
In any case you can watch a solid dozen video sources that show her reversing and targeting this office and hitting him.
No, you cannot, because that's not what happened. Look at the angle of her front tires. You don't steer right when you're trying to run down someone standing to your left.
She was not targeting him, she was backing up to turn to leave. Onlookers have stated the same thing we can all see in the videos. She wasn't a dangerous felon, that's state propaganda. And no, shooting a fleeing vehicle is not proper enforcement.
Not judging your reply, but my understanding of the meaning of the word ‘trigger happy’ is that the shooter is too hasty in deciding to fire, and has nothing to do with their skill or accuracy.
I never mentioned a vehicle, let's stay with the hypothetical. Is the cop who fired a single shot into someones head because they were startled by a hiccup "trigger happy"? Or do they need to "mag dump" for the term to apply?
The car accelerated after she was shot and hit another parked car down the road. It could have been a bystander. It was an out of control vehicle, that's why LE is trained not to shoot a moving vehicle.
"Trigger happy" means an affinity to shoot with little or no provocation. Effectiveness with a weapon is unrelated. This is absolutely the definition of trigger happy.
The officer chose to engage and close on the vehicle and chose to circle from the front. If the officer was concerned about being run over, they shouldn't have stood right at the bumper. The car was clearly in gear, moving forward was an obvious expectation.
Did the officer have an escape route? Obviously yes, since they only had to side step to avoid the car. Was there an exigent circumstance? No, the officer could have retreated and nobody else was clearly in harm's way. Was the driver clearly a threat? Again, no.
No, this was straight-up murder from a trigger happy psychopath.
I think there is a disconnect in meanings of trigger-happy. Yours seems to be what people familiar with guns mean, and the other was colloquial “too willing to use a gun.” So you disputed both meanings, but you’re not going to persuade the other side by saying he was actually very trained and skillful in what they see as an unjustified killing. (Not really taking a side personally as I haven’t watched or read much about the death.)
So it ultimately comes down to you pretending that you're the ICE officer in this scenario and that you're a heroic upholder of law that killed a violent felon, considering your other comments here. I shouldn't be surprised that you would feel particularly proud about killing a mother under the vaguest and false pretense of a threat.
Your comment jumping to my personal upbringing is uncalled for and not in keeping with hacker news standing and shows you are the morally/intellectually weak one when it comes to this discussion, but you are a moron if you think you can infer where someone grew up or what they have been through because they don't think LAW ENFORCEMENT should behave with PERSONAL MALICE when killing someone.
Thank you for your analysis. This is the kind of nuanced discourse I come to this internet forum for.
If nothing else, I do hope that everyone involved gets the help and care they deserve. Post-trauma depression is a real thing and diagnosis is sketchy at best.
I think we do take away the license of people shown unfit to drive, or with conditions that may cause their driving to hurt others (conditions that cause sudden loss of consciousness, confusion, etc). If the officer has PTSD from being dragged, he should not be given a gun and told to stop someone operating a car using his own body.
Not to mention, do you think we hold our law enforcement to the same standard as our civilians? Do we expect more or less restraint from them in situations like this? Are they trained to handle these situations? If so, what failed in this instance?
Female is a word that can refer to any species. Woman is a human female. The use of "female" is often used to dehumanize the subject, and is almost never used consistently. I am guessing you do not, off the cuff, refer to men as "males". It sounds weird as hell.
> Anyway, law enforcement is fully within their right to meet deadly force with deadly force
Do you disagree that the driver had her wheels turned away from the officer who shot her?
The video shows she turns the vehicle away from the officer and the officer makes no effort to retreat or step away from the vehicle. This is in direct conflict with ICE and DHS use of force policy.
He was moving to assist with an arrest another officer was in the process of making, and it is clear in the video that she looked forward and saw the officer in front of her and decided to accelerate anyway. It doesn't matter if she thought she wouldn't have hit him if she turned hard enough to the right, she hit him anyway.
Again, that is not what the evidence shows, and you are free to follow along as the officer is prosecuted for official confirmation of the facts of the case.
The local prosecutor is collecting evidence currently, so while it may take time to indict considering murder charges against a federal officer, I expect to see it occur eventually. They are bypassing the FBI to avoid a lack of effort one would expect from this administration.
> Hennepin County prosecutor asks the public to share Renee Good shooting evidence with her office
The Governor and mayor do not agree at all that it is in his favor. Nor does The NY Times. I've watched dozens of people break down the video, including former LE who say the officer was clearly in the wrong.
Even if you were correct (you aren't) using 'blocking law enforcement' as part of some cumulative guilt she acquired that justifies a moms murder is weak fucking sauce man. The bar you are trying to set for justifying extra-judicially killing her is un-American as fuck.
'blocking law enforcement using their SUV and then try to flee' has zero relevance as the when law enforcement is authorized to use deadly force. Why the fuck are you trying to expand those actions to death sentences? It's not coming from American law nor authority granted to law enforcement.
Absolutely fascinating that this report is very detailed about _certain_ things... but edits the source video to fade out right at the relevant instant and then completely omits the fact that the agent called her a "fucking bitch" immediately after executing her. (The released source material is several seconds longer.)
Edit at 21:29 UTC: BBC has edited the article to include the following line: "In the final part of the video the car is seen veering down the road. The ICE agent swears." Again, that "final part" has been edited out entirely. It shows that the agent was not affected by the SUV, and maintains his iPhone in his offhand recording the incident without issue. "The ICE agent swears." is used euphemistically to obfuscate what he actually did and said, which was to angrily call the victim a "fucking bitch".
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
However, our Supreme Court is out of control, and Justice Kavanaugh recently issued a ruling allowing racial profiling, meaning people can be detained for looking a certain way. These sorts of racially motivated detentions are now known as "Kavanaugh Stops": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop
So ICE agents don't have to suspect them of any crime; if they "look illegal", they can be detained and deported without due process.
I didn't see another comment that just answers the question plainly, so I'll give it a try...
ICE agents are police officers and have all the powers that police officers have. They're under federal jurisdiction rather than state, county, or city. The only limitations are what does or does not fall under their jurisdiction. For instance, they don't have the power to enforce traffic laws (because those aren't federal), but they can certainly arrest you for breaking federal laws or detain you while investigating them.
The part (as a person of another country) that I don't understand is why people even here on HN is so much against people whose job is to arrest people who broke federal laws.
As I see those laws are not really knew, they were just not enforced during the previous administration as strictly, but people who broke those laws did it consciously.
Do people really care about the people who broke the laws or just hate the current administration so much?
Sneaking across the border is a crime. Overstaying your visa (70-80% of "illegal immigration") is not a crime. It is more analogous to a parking ticket in terms of severity.
The thing is - for a long time immigration was not enforced because the legals paths were blocked off to create a class of cheap labor to drive the American economy. It worked, and it source mostly jobs which citizens did not want to do. (Not entirely, and yes it did depress wages)
The deportation part is the defensible part of the story. It is a lot more than "sending them home". What's going on is excessive. It's worth mentioning - the people being "deported" have something in common, and it's not necessarily their immigration status, it's overwhelmingly their ethnicity.
The Polish and eastern European community by me doesn't seem to be having any deportation issues, despite having a lot of illegal immigrants via visa overstay.
Latinos are - statistically - causing less problems than citizens.
In fact, they are propping up our economy. I had suspected you were posting in bad faith; now I know for sure. Our immigrant population - legal and not - solve more problems than they cause, and the numbers show that.
Thanks for putting the lie - explicitly, in your own words - to the idea this is about the law. You were fine with European illegal immigrants which cause similar amounts of issues (few) to Latinos. The difference is ethnicity. Full stop.
I think that the objections have more to do with the unnecessary violence, cruelty, and demonization the feds are engaging in, and the fact that they're targeting people who have every legal right to be here, than the law enforcement itself. The feds also going out of their way to subvert justice and defy our system of law and as such, they represent a threat to us all.
> they were just not enforced during the previous administration as strictly
They were not enforced so cruelly, perhaps, but the Biden administration was not exactly lax about this stuff. They were deporting people in record numbers. They just weren't tossing aside things like basic human dignity, respect for the law, and due process when doing so.
I'm not sure why you think my account is overtaken, but it's all real (I haven't used any LLMs and I'm not a native English speaker).
U.S. politics is not something people from other countries like me can just ignore as it affects our lives as well (what NATO does just as an example).
At the same time I'm not living there and some things are just hard to understand / imagine, and I believe I'm not alone in this (eventhough I love visiting USA).
Of course I have my political opinions but I am respectful and actually like to discuss life experiences my friends who were ,,forced'' on the other side of the political spectrum.
In my experience there is usually one or two emotionally/financially charged case that makes people choose a side and then get in that viewpoint (I'm no different).
What's not productive (and what I have unfortunately felt here in political threads) is just simply downvoting eachother.
They are armed like special police forces, acting on behalf of the administration, with no legal jurisdiction. They are like an occupying force. Our congress will not reign in the administration, and so we are being terrorized by our own government (that we also pay money to :))
They certainly have less training than police - where typical academy can last anywhere from 4-8 months. As I understand it, ICE agents only have 47 days of training.
From the Atlantic:
> New deportation officers at ICE used to receive about five months of federal-law-enforcement training. Administration officials have cut that time roughly in half, partly by eliminating Spanish-language courses. Academy training was shortened to 47 days, three officials told me, the number picked because Trump is the 47th president.
She backed up & pointed her vehicle to go right & then turned her wheels rightward. What did he do (while holding a cell phone & drawing his weapon)? Re-position in front of her car. If her intention was to 'run him over', she didn't act that way.
ICE does not have jurisdiction to enforce traffic laws, she was not detained. The agents were harassing her, hoping she’d give them justification to execute her in broad daylight.
You are trying to manufacture a justification for the murder of a mom because she was not free to leave and (you claim) assault. Neither of those are crimes punishable by death, nor allow for deadly force. And neither of those allow for extra-judicial enforcement of a punishment (murder).
She was killed because, in the words of the shooter, he considered her "a fucking bitch".
The car wasn't aimed at him, it was slowly turning away, it didn't hit or touch him, his hand held phone jolted as he fired. He was seemingly fit and unharmed as he stomped away angry after firing three shots.
He moved into firing position as he didn't want her to leave and wanted to shoot her to stop her.
Imagine if Biden's Attorney General had gone on TV wearing a cowboy hat and said, "Derek Chauvin was acting in self defense" one hour after the video came out.
CORRECTION — Jan. 9, 2026: An earlier version of this post, based on CBC News Network’s initial interview with Warrick, cited his belief that the video had been edited. Warrick has since said he no longer believes the footage was edited, based on additional analysis and review of multiple angles. CBC News’ visual investigations team was unable to find evidence the video had been edited from its original form. This post has been updated to reflect Warrick's new comments.
A security expert who has analyzed the new video filmed by an ICE officer says it appears to have been edited to remove crucial moments that show when shots were fired at Good.
Thomas Warrick, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think-tank, said when the 47-second-long video is watched second-by-second, it briefly goes black around the 42-second mark.
"There's no logical reason why somebody holding a cellphone has a black frame at that point," said Warrick, a former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at the Department of Homeland Security.
He said the phone evidently didn't fall to the ground, because the officer is holding it at the end of the video and pointing it toward Good's car.
"So, clearly, he never dropped the phone. Why is that black frame there? What happened?" Warrick said.
"This is going to fuel the narrative that evidence is being manipulated."
( I'm outside the US, I've worked for deacdes in "intelligence" (being accurate about video, signals, resources, data) for well heeled private clients and state, national level governments. )
Wider angle earlier release video that showed the other officer approach the side window, reach in and attempt to grab keys and or unlock and open door (prompting car to reverse, turn wheels, and move forwards) show this officer turning, crouching, drawing, stalking in to aiming at driver all prior to the forward motion.
This released footage does not appear to have that sequence.
Watch it slowed down and you actually see the officers face for a frame before it goes black as he presses the phone against himself at the exact moment he fired.
I posted a comment on here and then deleted it when I considered the topic.
From the guidelines: Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities.... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
There are plenty of places online to discuss politics and current events and HN is intended to be something else.
> There are plenty of places online to discuss politics and current events
Where? I keep seeing this claim but I don't think it's accurate. Not trying to be snarky, but you might find that all of those places you would suggest are distinctly different from HN in a way that leaves HN frequenters wanting HN. (Though, maybe not; I am genuinely curious for any suggestions.)
> HN is intended to be something else
I don't really disagree but I also firmly believe that if the political situation in the US magically reverted back to ca. 2010, people wouldn't be posting an article reporting about another video that surfaced showing how a woman was extra-judicially executed by an ICE agent; it would be something like Obamacare Bad and it would get flagged because it's way more obviously partisan.
The only reason this is considered "political" at all is that a certain politically partisan tribe in the US is trying desperately to paint the events as anything other than the factual statement that "a woman was extra-judicially executed by an ICE agent".
It's only the second item you list which is the problem. Political stories inevitably get discussed when they are significant enough, they don't even get taken down from the frontpage. No, the problem is the grifter crowd abusing the flag function for things they simply don't like.
Weird that you note her irrelevant banter, but miss the part at 0:40 where she is clearly turning her steering wheel hard to the right prior to accelerating, when he's standing near the left front corner of the vehicle. It's hard to tell if she grazes him with the bumper/mirror or if he just jumps back, and it's a jumpy move to be making with people around -- understandably panicky given the shouted conflicted orders and the armed man reaching in and trying to open her door. But she was obviously not intentionally trying to run the guy over. And the officer's shoot-to-kill response was wildly disproportionate and against protocol. LEO are supposed to be trained to handle high-pressure situations like this, and one who overreacts and kills an unarmed civilian should be held to a much higher standard.
Dude... look at your post history and tell me you don't engage in the worst kind of political rhetoric here. You are obsessed with "leftists" and your comment history shows it.
The fact you same people the day prior said that Jan6 was peaceful shows you have zero moral integrity. Just the basic corruption creed of "for my friends everything, for my enemies, the law".
Why are you building a case for extrajudicial murder based on:
an American speaking sarcastically to an government employee.
an agent placing himself against training in potential danger, knowing the obligation is on the agent to keep the situation safe
the agent shakes the cell phone he is holding as he distarges his government issued weapon to murder a mother (who as you pointed out, used sarcasm). THis shows how little danger/how little contact if any was made against him.
Ice ROUTINELY makes more contact with their vehicles against protesters. Are you saying protestors now would be in the right to start shooting ICE when that occurs? ICE has shown they will murder American's without remorse, so protestors actually have 'fear for their lives'. Will you call for ICE agents arrests and they be charge and have the FULL WEIGHT of attempted murder against them if their vehicles make contact with protestors? Since this contact justifies killing in your mind, then locking ICE agents in prison for life if they make contact with their vehicles is letting them off easy, right? Oh I forgot 'for my friends, everything. For my enemies, the law'.
The only thing relevant is did the agent put himself in harms way and against training (yes)
Could the agent have handled the situation differently? Again yes, by the fact he was in so little danger he was able to continue filming holding his personal cellphone while murdering this mother.
You also leave out the part where he calls her a bitch after murdering her, showing that an agent of the United States murdered an American out of malice, not fear.
Edit: Downvoting instead of responding you are pathetic. If you have to write a paragraph of justification for the extra judicial murder of a mom and one of your key points is 'sarcasm was used by a mom', then the extra judicial murder isn't justifiable.
> From watching the videos, especially this latest one, she tried to hit the officer.
I don't see this at all. She was turning her steering wheel hard right when the officer was standing at the front left corner of her vehicle, indicating her intent was to drive around the guy. You can see that in the two or three seconds before the officer's camera jerks.
If this was the only video we have of the incident, you might be forgiven for assuming that she was unsuccessful in avoiding him, but the earlier video caught from a different perspective made it look like the officer hopped out of the way untouched. In any case, even if contact was made, it wasn't severe enough for the officer to drop the phone despite being held in one hand while at the same time drawing and firing his gun multiple times at the driver.
I've seen far worse strikes/near-misses happen when parents teach their teenagers to drive for the first time where everyone walks away unhurt.
It looks like he fell backwards, implying the car hit him, but the bodycam actually detached. Until another bodycam shows why it fell, the car either clipped his vest or he pulled it off while drawing his gun…
Should be possible to give a good estimate if you know the camera configuration. Clearly the car didn’t hit him very hard if he’s still holding a phone in one hand afterwards.
To me this video confirms that the story from the administration that he was run over and hospitalised is nonsense.
It also confirms that the couple were being confrontational and obstructionist, but I still don’t think that’s a reason for her to die.
A rational organisation would reflect and ask how this sort of scenario can be handled better in future, but that doesn’t seem likely here.
> intentional impact by the decedent striking the officer with their body cam (not a cell phone)
It is a cellphone camera, you can even see where he switches hands in the video, as well as a reflection in the car window of him holding it.
Like the rest of your lies, this is incredibly lazy.
> And if you simply want to keep trying to justify attempted murder on an ICE officer,
The only murder attempt was by the officer, and it was successful. And, even before thet, ICE officers with their very narrowly constrained legal authority had no lawful justification for approaching the vehicle and having one of the officers try to open the door; ICE officers were engaged in criminal misconduct even before escalating to murder.
They did do something wrong. Shooting at a vehicle is not self defense. That is a DOJ rule which no doubt you've seen in these several threads you frequent and troll.
> they didn’t arrest the co-conspirator that egged the decedent on
Glad to see you've abandoned trying to defend your lie that shooting at a vehicle is self-defence and moved on to another nonsense argument. But co-conspirator in what crime?
> save that for BlueSky where you can have a safe space.
I don't need a safe space from you. Your trolling doesn't affect me.
https://bsky.app/profile/ragnarokx.bsky.social/post/3mbz7pt4...
> I synced up the video from the Johnathan Ross and a bystander to help show what was happening when he fumbled his camera. He was already out of the way at that point and already had his gun drawn. It wasn't him being hit, it was him shooting Renee Good.
reply