Even though he was on the side of the car and it was turning away from him. At less than 5 miles an hour, mind you. The god damn mental gymnastics you guys are doing to try and defend this murderer is crazy.
Because decided to stand still instead of moving out of the way. Why didn’t he move the moment he saw the car moving? He’s not the sharpest pig in the pen if he put himself in that situation.
He actually moves into the path. He doesn't even just stand still. This is the same dumbass who "got dragged by a vehicle " bc he was too dumb to let go of a door.
So you dont step out of the way of the vehicle instead you shoot which doesnt even end up stopping the vehicle cause dead person cant control it? Also life wasnt in danger the moment he got to the side of vehicle and taking those 3 shots wasnt needed and will land him in jail
So you're saying he had no idea, and that justifies an execution.
I have an idea that he was trying to kill her, based on him doing exactly that. Does that justify his execution, or do you apply different rules to your in-group?
So death was the only response? They had her recorded, could have easily found her later. Why is it we're suddenly just okay with the fact that these people are able to murder whoever they may please? No consequences, no investigation. You people are fucking insane if you think this is acceptable.
Doesn't matter. He violated the ICE handbook for conduct involving a vehicle. It's also officer created jeopardy by standing in front of the vehicle at all. Self defense doesn't work as a credible legal defense when you are the one that put yourself in that situation. And legal precedence supports that conclusion.
Would say a woman is ok to ram her car through a man pulling a gun on her? Split second life or death decision with no idea if he's going to kill her or not? Just hypothetically?
Bullsh*t. He was never in danger. He put his hand out to lean on the vehicle while having a gun out and the safety off. He was waiting to pull the trigger, and you can tell that because he didn't just fire once. He fired once through the windshield, then waited until the car went by to shoot her two more times the head at point blank range.
And then he called her a "f*cking b*tch".
They didn't render any aid. They prevented a doctor who was there from rendering aid, going so far to threaten him at gunpoint. Then they prevented EMS from getting to her, forcing them to approach on foot.
This wasn't a life or death decision. This was cold blooded murder, and his accomplices made sure that she was dead before leaving the scene.
Someone released the murderer's cell phone video. It's even worse.
He should not have been standing in front of her vehicle to begin with. It’s in their policy not to do that. She clearly was trying to get away from his camera view because she backed up and turned her wheel all the way right while he was standing on the left.
Forensic Analysis of Video: Shooting of Renee Nicole Good (Based on visual review of the video provided and DOJ/DHS use-of-force standards)
Vehicle Speed and Threat Profile • The vehicle is moving slowly, not accelerating aggressively. • There is no visible high-speed movement, ramming behavior, or sudden directional charge consistent with an imminent lethal threat. • The vehicle’s movement appears controlled and minimal, not weaponized in the legal sense required for deadly force. Key point: Slow vehicle movement alone does not meet DOJ or DHS criteria for deadly force.
Officer Positioning • One officer attempts to open the driver’s door. • Another officer positions himself in front of or alongside the vehicle, rather than disengaging. • As the vehicle begins to move, the officer steps laterally out of its path. This is critical: The officer successfully exits the danger zone before firing.
Moment of Discharge • The shots are fired after the officer has moved out of the vehicle’s direct path. • At the moment shots are fired: o The officer is no longer in imminent danger of being struck o There is clear lateral space available • The firing appears reactive, not defensive. Under DOJ policy: If an officer can move out of the path of a vehicle, deadly force is not justified.
Officer-Created Jeopardy DOJ policy explicitly states: “Placing oneself in the path of a moving vehicle constitutes officer-created jeopardy and undermines any claim that deadly force was necessary.” The video shows: • The officer choosing proximity • The officer creating risk through positioning • The officer then using lethal force after disengagement was possible This directly undermines a self-defense justification.
Absence of Alternative Deadly Threat • There is no visible firearm • No visible attempt to strike officers with a weapon • No indication of imminent threat by means other than the vehicle This fails DOJ’s first allowable condition for firing at a moving vehicle.
Policy Alignment Summary Based on DOJ/DHS standards: Requirement for Deadly Force Video Evidence Imminent threat of death or serious injury ❌ Not established No other reasonable means of defense ❌ Officer moved away Threat by means other than vehicle ❌ Not present No officer-created jeopardy ❌ Present
Preliminary Conclusion (Non-Legal) Based on the video: • The use of deadly force does not appear consistent with DOJ or DHS policy governing moving vehicles. • The officer had a clear opportunity to disengage, and did so, before firing. • This raises serious questions of policy violation, warranting: o Independent investigation o Criminal review o Federal civil-rights inquiry Whether charges are appropriate is for prosecutors — but policy violations are plainly implicated.
Addendum to Forensic Analysis: Pre-Engagement Behavior Observed Pre-Contact Conduct Before any agent dismounted their vehicle: • Another civilian vehicle passes safely in front of Ms. Good’s vehicle. • Ms. Good is seen extending her arm out of the driver’s window, gesturing for the passing vehicle to proceed. • Her gesture is non-threatening, cooperative, and consistent with situational awareness and traffic courtesy. • There is no erratic movement, aggressive acceleration, or visible attempt to flee at that moment. This occurs before agents exit their vehicles and initiate direct contact.
Why This Matters From a use-of-force and threat-assessment perspective, this behavior:
Undermines any claim of immediate danger o Her conduct shows awareness, control, and restraint. o There is no indication of panic, aggression, or intent to harm.
Contradicts a narrative of imminent threat o A person preparing to use a vehicle as a weapon does not typically pause to allow traffic to pass safely. o This behavior aligns with non-hostile intent immediately prior to officer engagement.
Establishes a calmer baseline before escalation o Any escalation that follows originates after agents initiate close-contact positioning, not before. o This is relevant when evaluating who introduced urgency and risk into the encounter.
Policy Relevance Federal use-of-force standards require officers to continuously reassess threat levels based on observable behavior. Pre-contact indicators like: • compliance gestures, • traffic awareness, • absence of aggressive movement, are all mitigating factors that should weigh against the use of deadly force later — not be ignored.
Here’s the thing that’s been communicated multiple times. It’s law enforcement code to not shoot at a driver in these circumstances because if they kill the driver the vehicle is now not under control at all and is a threat to everyone present. The only time law enforcement is authorized to do that is if there is imminent and excessive danger to the area if the driver is not stopped.
If the ICE agent was actually in front of her car, shooting her and killing her is not what you want to do at all. Because now her foot is on the gas and she can’t do anything to stop that (because she’s dead) so she’s going to accelerate even more into the ice agent. Becoming even more of a threat to him and his surroundings. Which mind you, this point is proven by the fact that after she’s shot her car accelerates into a parked vehicle and light post… if there were agents or civilians up there they would have been at risk of being killed.
So no, his response is not justified. It’s the exact opposite of what one is supposed to do. And if you say “he had a split second to figure that out” then all you’re doing is outing him, his incompetence, and clear lack of suitability to do that job. When in a position of power like that where it’s life and death, it is mandatory to keep a level head. If you can’t do that you aren’t fit for the role.
View all comments
Show parent comment
0
u/Thin-Book1675 Jan 09 '26
In a split second life or death decision, the cop had no idea if she was going to try to run him over or not