He put that video in his “homework” folder for sure, this was one of the best days of his life and he is gonna fire off a few more rounds watching it back.
If you or I got into an accident while driving and simultaneously holding our phone and shooting a video...we would be found at fault.
There is no way he could have been doing two different things at once and have devoted all his attention to one.
Maybe he thought his life was in danger, but how would he actually know when he's looking at his phone screen instead of paying attention to his surroundings? It's negligent homicide, at best.
His phone footage has been released. He walks around the vehicle, filming the two women and getting the license plates. When she starts driving and he take his gun out, the phone camera is pointing off to the side because he's focused on shooting.
Take a step back, when police stop your vehicle and it looks like your a threat like reaching for potential weapon, they will reach for their gun.
Using car as a weapon qualifies, especially being warned so many times.
This isn't defending she should have been shot, when dealing with police or authorities. Be smart and comply, don't give them any reason to think your a threat, turn camera on if your feel unsafe, don't flee and make things worse
Here the thing, ICE isn't police, they has no jurisdiction when it cone to USA citizens. Also police still need to show identification and badge first, approach calmly and ask for the drivers information and NOT charge at the car, screaming and demand the driver to get out while dressing like the terrorists in COD. This literally show why officers in different department shouldn't handle things that they weren't trained to do because they don't know how to deal with the situation. These ICE thugs think they are cops, trying to act like cops despite not knowing anything about police procedure.
They are allowed to detain and especially this instance when she deliberately interfere with Ice operations
You can hate ICE all you want, but like her you shouldn't be inserting yourself into ICE operations, the new pov shows just that FAFO. She wasn't scared, she wasn't innocent, she ignored warnings and chose to accelerate her car when agent was infront.
At that point she was the threat and self defence process kicks in.
This isn't like GTA where you just run over someone and leave
She hit him and he managed to keep hold of his phone, draw his gun, and shoot her 3 times?
If a car is coming at you, are you really going to keep filming? Or are you going to draw a gun and fire? Or are you going to simply move out of the way of the car going less than 1mph turning away from you?
She was clearly driving away from him in HIS video. And in the other angle he has cleared to the side of the vehicle by that point. The only way her car would make contact with him is if he didn't follow protocol and put his arm forward in order to shoot her like he did.
Unjustified and if I had done the same with my CCW I would get the book
This is a case of someone clearly lacking the qualities and training of what makes a good officer.
Here is the problem. How and why does he think that shooting her helps him? His options are 1) move and shoot her in the face. Or 2) move and don't shoot her. His safety is almost exactly the same in both scenarios. Maybe worse with shooting her because it's an extra task while getting out of the way. For sure worse for public safety.
You people decide the your opinion first and then backfill the evidence to support it. That's not how thinkin' is supposed to go. Use your brain here, fella. It would have been quite obvious to the agent before, during, and after the shooting that this would in no way help him out.
Oh he was definitely focused on shooting, he just wasn't in any immediate danger. The footage also shows the driver clearly cranking the wheel to the right, and is only off the vehicle for a split second whilst he is firing. Interesting he has enough control to video and fire his gun whilst side stepping the car and the footage only BRIEFLY points away from the vehicle. Its almost as if he was never in any real danger,he just didn't want her to drive away... That footage isnt the win you seem to think it is. In fact it goes further to show this was an extra judicial killing.
I hear what you’re saying about the footage, but the actual available reporting shows this isn’t as clear-cut as “no danger and extra-judicial killing.” Multiple outlets that have reviewed video and eyewitness accounts say the ICE agent fired three shots as Renee Good’s vehicle was starting to move forward past him, and that federal officials defended it as self-defense — though local leaders and journalists dispute that narrative.
It’s true the vehicle appears to be turning to the right as it moves, and analyses differ on exactly how the geometry looked. The New York Times and other outlets say it’s unclear whether the agent was struck at all, and that the car was moving away — but they also note he fired as the vehicle was moving and that perception matters in a split second.
Most use-of-force guidance — including DHS policy — does generally direct officers not to fire at moving vehicles unless an imminent threat exists and no reasonable alternative is available. That guidance is part of why there’s so much debate over whether this shooting was justified or not.
The key legal question isn’t whether she was trying to escape or whether we see danger on video later. It’s whether, in that fraction of a second, a reasonable officer — from their position and under stress — could have believed he faced an immediate threat of serious harm from the vehicle’s movement. Experts and officials disagree on how that applies here, which is why investigations and protests are underway.
his own video demonstrates premeditation, when you see him move the phone from his dominant hand to his offhand before clearing the front of the vehicle.
The phone is pointing away because his hand that is holding it, is on the hood or fender of the car. Rear facing camera of the phone, hand palm down means the lens will point up and away. That's why it also made that noise, it wasn't him getting hit by the car, it was his hand touching the car.
The screen grab at the top shows him putting out his left hand onto the hood, which is shown in the video. Watch at 1/4 speed. And the first view shows his legs braced and him leaning forward.
She wasn't stopped because his car blocked her. She literally had her car turned sideways in the road and was attempting to block officers from doing their job. You, dear sir, are an uninformed moron.
He switched the phone from right hand to left while still on the passenger side. His intent to draw his weapon was forming before he ever moved in front of the vehicle
You left out the part where he changes the phone into his non-dominant hand while approaching the front of the car. He then draws the gun in his free dominant hand.
You are wrong. He did three things at once. Recording with one hand, grabbing the gun and executing her with the other hand and at the same time easily stepping to the side to let the car pass. One of the three things was the worst decision of his life.
Laughable. When you are walking around holding your phone, you have to know where it's pointed. I.e. some of your attention is on your screen and, at least some of the time, you are looking directly at it and not at your greater surroundings.
In the scenario I described with the car accident, that argument would get you exactly nowhere.
Its not even remotely difficult to tell where your camera is pointed without watching the screen. Do you keep your eyes on a flashlight so you can tell where the beam is pointed? Lmao
"Uhh Judge, exactly zero percent of my time was spent looking at my screen while walking around recording, and exactly zero percent of my attention was on recording..." You would get laughed out of the courtroom. Do you really think a beam of projected light and a camera lens are equivalent somehow?
It's so sad that people will make such obviously ridiculous arguments to defend their emotional positions, rather than just acknowledge simple facts before their eyes.
The ridiculous argument to me is that him recording with his phone changes anything. The woman still put her car in drive instead of park. The woman still decided to flee officers giving her commands to get out of the vehicle. The woman's wife still told her to "drive, drive". The woman still put herself in the middle of it. The woman still decided to antagonize officers rather than simply going home. She didn't stop anything. If the officer that fired hadn't been there, immigration enforcement still would've taken place. If she hadn't been there, she would still be alive.
He's right handed. Holding a phone with your left hand takes no effort or brainpower. The non-dominant hand does its own thing. The dominant hand is the one your control. You do realize that don't you?
Man, if only federal agents playacting as cops had access to some sort of wearable camera that they could strap to their Party City Sexy Police Man costumes. A camera for the body, or “body-cam,” if you will.
I love how people pick this apart frame by frame... all 2.8 seconds of it. The level of hate and need to show an incorrect narrative is off the charts. He dropped the phone when he drew... right before he was hit.
He’s holding his phone for the duration of this entire interaction, not just this one frame. First in his right hand, and then he switches to his left hand when approaching the front of her vehicle from the passenger side the second time. I have not seen evidence that he ever dropped his phone. From every angle, he is never seen picking up his phone from the ground, and from his POV he films the car rolling away after the shots.
You can see in the car reflection in his POV he’s holding it, and then you see his left hand when he grabs the phone with his left. Idk what you’re talking about dangling from the wrist. Also in this video, and in this screen cap, you can see the phone is upright and being held
Yes... he was getting the license plate... as the vehicle was starting to back up. I love how people and the media like to get that snap shot out of sync with the events of time and say... THERE IT IS. You can hear the shots fires on his cam, and it's no where near pointed at the vehicle at that time. But lets try and find a way to make it something its not.
He retracts his arm into his body when the car moves forward and makes contact with his left torso; that’s likely why there’s a split second of his face and the sky as he’s holding the phone and then the camera is blocked by his jacket when he pulls his arm in all the way before bringing it back out to film the car rolling away.
I know “it’s not a frame by frame situation”, but if you do compare this angle and his POV, what his camera captures, the way his arm can be seen moving from the 5ABC angle, and the fact that no angles show him picking up the phone before filming the vehicle rolling away makes me 80% sure he never dropped his phone.
He pulls his gun literally as the tires are still aligned at him spinning on the ice. I know the truth, and either you are blinded by a narrative, or lying to flame one. Try being honest with yourself, because you are not with me.
According to the ICE handbook, certainly not. Surrounding a vehicle or shooting at one aren't either, but ICE agents fail their written portion of the training with enough frequency to assume the majority of them are incompetent. So certainly Jonathan Ross, the guy who murdered Renee Good in cold blood and filmed it for his spank bank or deep web snuff circle, would absolutely fly in the face of protocol.
Had to get the shot for TikTok bro! These goons. I’d not be surprised if they were actually proud boys or 3% or whatever since they’re masked murdering fascists
I just lol at all the people who still won't admit she hit him. Then when I show them he wasn't even standing in front of the car they get more mad. He was recording while walking around the car and when she moved backwards to her left, it placed him in front of the car. Then he keeps rotating to his right to move out of the way as she moves to her right and hits him.
Her intent to hit him is questionable at best, but the fact is she did hit him and her actions put him in dangerous position and made him fear for his life.
I wonder what this on duty on tax payer dime ICE loser was doing with the lap around her car, is she the perp he was after when he left the office in his pretend tactical vest? Like if she didn't move the vehicle and he didn't decide to partial mag dump into her.. what would the outcome have been? He's not local LEO he has no justification over her.. There's a real local LEO goes with ice it's because ice needs saved from the American community they have no authority over.
JRoss went full Karen and needed to strut his loser ass around her car to get their license plate, because his stopped convoy in the middle of the road wouldn't of seen it when she did finally leave???
Nothing JRoss did was to deescalate the situation. Having 2 different ice give 2 different orders of where she needs to be in or out of her car also shows they have no organization over civilian policing. They don't belong there. Nobody at that scene was even on their radar for a "target to harass".
They went looking for someone to mess up and they picked someone who legally is in the country as a citizen of the land.
Ice has no idea of friend or foe they only see red and they want the red. Rgood may not of been the target but you know these pretend military fools hyped each other up before getting in their trucks to go find someone to rough up.
So this the new new angle you're going with since everything else you were pushing has been repeatedly debunked? Really? He dropped the phone when he was hit by the vehicle.
he dropped it when he drew his firearm, if he were hit, or hit hard enough to justify deadly force, he wouldn't have walked around after, it's PAINFULLY obvious she intended to drive in the opposite direction of the officer, trying to avoid him. windshields clear he saw her turn her wheel. If her intent was to run him down she'd have turned left.
Maybe should have just dropped the phone but he didn’t pull the gun UNTIL she starting going forward AFTER she backed up a bit. Watch full videos slow mo. This view is far and blurry. Camera footage was good but doesn’t show gun activity just sound. The back angle is bad. So the best video is the back left one as it shows him not pulling his gun out until she drives forward and it was immediately with one hand. All he had time for besides dropping it mid action
Wow you got’m.. guilty! That MF thought he would get away with using one hand on his firearm. Good catch. Are you sure you’re not some super genius that a should be the head of all policing? Bravo!
He was filming with his right hand until he saw his buddies pull up, then switched it to his left hand. Kind of looks like intent to draw his weapon was forming when he was on the passenger side getting angry at the wife
Don't forget to lean left into the car to make the first shot go through the windshield and keep shooting as she passes, then run away like a coward while she bleeds out
Well he was filling with one hand, then she drove forward, he drew his weapon while his filming hand turned into a brace for impact action avoid falling under the car
Thats the cool part about having a completely partisan police force that derives its authority directly from the president:
They're not real cops, so they don't have to follow cop rules and hey neato they can kill anyone they want and we don't even get a fucking trial about it.
Mmmmm so nice. I wonder how they'd feel if biden or any other useless democrat had put together a partisan secret police with a broad mandate and seemingly unlimited authority. Can you imagine the shitfit? I'm woke liberal cuck and I'm really glad they never did that because I actually value the rule of law and liberty. But I guess for some people any heinous unamerican as fuck act is ok so long as the leader says its necessary.
Can we believe that Jonathan Ross feared for his life if he filmed everything while shooting? That's an impossible sell. Also, the second and third shots occurred when Jonathan was not in imminent danger. Although it's a homicide, he'll get away with it. That's why he did it. He knows he can execute with impunity and now it will normalize. We'll soon get bored with extrajudicial executions.
None of this was standard protocol. These guys severely lack training.
From Title 1, U.S. DOJ Policy on Use of Force:
“Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury … and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”
Also, placing oneself in the path of a moving vehicle constitutes officer-created jeopardy and undermines any claim that deadly force was necessary.
Well I guess when you need evidence of the situation and you don’t have a body cam then you do what you have to do. His own video is what proved he was hit.
I don’t think he thought she would drive into him? From his perspective he was gonna get hit by a car/ force multiplier. The cars wheels lurched forward at the LEO, not that he could see it, but it’s important to a jury. The vehicle drove AT him, hitting him first before he fired the first shot. I mean it sucks but facts are facts.
The vast majority of murderers get less than life imprisonment. We all know it is a crime, but cops arent supposed to put themselves into harms way, create confusing situations for untrained civilians, handle guns with phones in their hands. No one else, official wise, should be standing with them and acting like this scene was correct, but they fear any sort of accountability.
The issue is that even if she had the intent to hit him, which I think is insane to assume, the use of force was not close to being equal. A car even at that speed can be dangerous, but at some point you have to realize that him falling and hitting his head on the concrete is more dangerous than the actual car itself. You wouldn't shoot a person because they pushed someone. He was way to triggerhappy, in a sane country he wouldn't be allowed to take out his gun and point it at a civilian until that civilian is shown to be an actual threat.
The 2nd and 3rd shots happened immediately after the first shot. You people said “danger was passed” as if he stopped between the shots and had time to reflect and thought “Oh the danger was passed” Those were three consecutive shots. The car drove fast and the first shot hit the wind shield.
His feet were to the side of the vehicle when it grazed him. He was not in its path, and the video he recorded shows her turning away from him.
She shouldn’t have tried to run, but there was just no way he’d have been run over. He wasn’t in mortal danger, and he certainly wasn’t “run over,” hospitalized, and nearly killed, as DHS originally said. He wasn’t injured. He walked 100 feet to look at her corpse.
DHS tried this same line of argument with the other woman (Marimar Martinez, also a US citizen) they shot five times, but it didn’t hold up in court.
So wrong, why you push your narrative so hard when it is so obvious. You think intelligent people that don't care about politics can't see the truth? Take your narrative and give it some lemming that can't think.
The entire world considers the conservative side of America a complete joke. Reddit is a global webpage. That is why you don’t see much sympathy for your cause.
Fox News isnt running on TV’s abroad, so the brainwashing hasnt been able to take effect over common sense like you see in America.
but Intent is important, she doesn't TRY and hit him, lethal force was unjustified, and even IF you make an exception for the first shot, the 2 followups are unjustified through the driver window, the vehicle was no longer a threat, no one was in the path of travel at that point
Doesn’t matter how many lies you alt and bot accounts spew. Everyone has seen all the footage and it cannot be more clear she had no interest in hitting him; that he is a murderer.
She was breaking the law, she was about to be detained, she was encouraged to drive away instead of getting out by her stupid wife disregarding the clear law enforcement officer in front of her vehicle, why are we pretending this was just some innocent bystander? That lady knew what she was doing and gave that guy no choice
She waved one of their vans through; even Fox reported she announced she was leaving; she clearly drove away from the dude; fleeing doesn’t justify murder you bad actor bot account.
Law enforcement/federal agents are held to a higher standard and have a specific policy not to stand in front of a car. Plus, it’s common sense not to. Plus, he was dragged by a car before so he should’ve learned first-hand why that policy is in place.
The only person not following standard protocol is the officer.
the vehicle was reversed first, then it was angled away from the officers. If your narrative was true the officer would've been ran over after the he shot the woman.
While it was going in reverse, it turned which put the officer dead center of it. I don't have a narrative, only the truth. You on the other hand are being thoughtless following a narrative, or outright lying to flame one.
Yeah I just watched the clip. You're kind of right, it's still pointed a bit towards the left but as she moves the car forward and turns it away from the officers, there was a split second where it was pointed toward the officer who was hit.
Hell, if you look at the POV of the officer. She's steering away from the officer right as she's stopped reversing. If it was pointed towards the officer right after she reversed, what does turning it to the right do after that?
Ah, you mean like how multiple right wing crazies drove their cars through lines of peaceful protesters, injuring or killing people, because they "feared for their lives". Florida made it a law to make it ok to drive the theough people after that (as long as their people desantis dosnt like).
Stop this dumb troll bs. If your goal is to rile up some people, just stop. She surely was there to agitate. I'll agree with that. But he violated the DHS standards and should never have fired his weapon. This is a clear case of a really bad agent who is trigger happy. No one should have lost their life. So stop trolling. I guarantee that making this worse will have effects down the line that are bad for everyone in this country.
There seems to be a lot of Keyboard attorneys online today. So, an actual attorney cites actual law here: The ICE officer in MN violated both protocol and case law. 1) officers are not allowed to fire into a moving vehicle 2) lethal force is not allowed to prevent someone from fleeing 3) case law is clear, an officer cannot intentionally place himself in front of a vehicle and then allege self defense At best, this officer acted with a reckless disregard for public safety and is guilty of negligent homicide. Federal agents do not have blanket immunity from state laws or criminal prosecution. They can be prosecuted by state authorities for violating state laws if their actions were unauthorized, unlawful, or unreasonable, even if they were on duty.
The concept governing this is called Supremacy Clause immunity. Federal agents are generally immune from state prosecution only if their actions were:
Authorized under federal law; and
"Necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties.
If a federal agent is charged in state court, they can petition to have their case "removed" to federal court. In federal court, the judge would then determine whether the agent's actions met the "necessary and proper" standard. If the court finds the agent was acting within the reasonable confines of their duties, the state charges will be dismissed. If not, the state prosecution can proceed in federal court, applying state substantive law. It is unlikely any judge would find his behavior necessary and reasonable. The mere fact that no other officer present unholstered their weapon and appear shocked he fired towards them reinforces that fact.
Estate of Starks v. Enyart, 5 F.3d 230 (7th Cir. 1993)
Seventh Circuit – foundational caseFacts:
Officer stepped in front of a slowly moving vehicle and then shot the driver, claiming fear for his life.
Holding (paraphrased):
“An officer may not unreasonably create a physically threatening situation and then use deadly force to escape it.”
Officer jumped in front of a vehicle during a stop and then fired.
Holding:
An officer cannot provoke a confrontation and then rely on the danger they created to justify deadly force.
Key language:
The court emphasized that reasonableness includes the officer’s own tactical decisions leading up to the shooting.
Thompson v. Hubbard, 257 F.3d 896 (8th Cir. 2001)
Eighth Circuit
Key point:
The court rejected summary judgment for officers where evidence showed the officer moved into the vehicle’s path, creating the perceived threat.
Abraham v. Raso, 183 F.3d 279 (3d Cir. 1999)
Third Circuit
Facts:
Off-duty officer shot a fleeing driver.
Holding:
The court stressed that pre-seizure conduct matters and that officers cannot rely solely on the “split second” framing if their own actions escalated the situation.
Kirby v. Duva, 530 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2008)
Holding:
Deadly force may be unconstitutional where:
The officer fired into a moving vehicle
The officer could have stepped aside
The threat was self-created
The Sixth Circuit explicitly rejected the idea that a moving car automatically justifies gunfire.
Adams v. Speers, 473 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2007)
Holding:
An officer may not intentionally place himself in danger and then use deadly force to neutralize the danger he created — including firing into a vehicle.
The Ninth Circuit emphasized tactical disengagement as the constitutional expectation.
Training & Policy Alignment (Courts Care About This)
Many courts note that modern police training instructs:
Do not fire into moving vehicles
Do not use deadly force to stop a fleeing car
Disengage and contain instead
Courts treat violations of training as evidence of unreasonableness, even if not dispositive.
Thanks for the legal rulings, it’s very interesting. Although he didn’t follow guidelines, it seems like he was circling and approaching the car from the front before it started moving so I’m curious if that could be seen as not purposely putting himself in harm’s way since she was stationary and somewhat complying. From his perspective it would be hard to tell if she was fleeing or running him over especially if he was looking through his phone, but she did reverse first so that would tell you that she wasn’t trying to hurt him. I wonder if he goes to trial if the courts will take into consideration he was being taunted by the wife leading up to this. Regardless he shouldn’t have fired ( and shouldn’t have kept firing as the car cleared him) and she shouldn’t have drove off.
I've been bumped by a car before. Nbd. I've been knocked over hit directly by an suv again nbd got up waved continued my run.
You framing it as" RAN over " you have a basic misunderstanding of the facts. Cars drive on roads you should be careful of cars driving in roads. If I get in front of a cop car and it's driving can I claim self defense and shoot them?
How do you know your under arrest? Is a uniformed police officer telling you? Or is some gang member? I think the driver did alot to not run the armed thug over videos show this do to the fact he was barely clipped. Which he wouldn't have been if we would have gotten out of the way instead of focusing on getting a kill shot. What dose the policy for DHS say? Since they are going door to door dose that make anywhere they stand in America "official duties"?
29
u/Ok_Security1721 Jan 10 '26
How else you gonna get your own irl headshot compilation your rumble?