The Cold Blooded Murder Of Renee Good

[Jimmy Higgins]

miss the windshield from point blank range,

Didn't miss the windsheld.

that woman was going to hit the ICE officer. It was self-defense.

He put himself in harm's way. Stepped in front to stop her.

You are digging in deep and taking fragments of a post out of context here. Also, there are three shots, one hole in the windshield, the far lower corner of it.

 

[Harry Bosch]

miss the windshield from point blank range,

Didn't miss the windsheld.

that woman was going to hit the ICE officer. It was self-defense.

He put himself in harm's way. Stepped in front to stop her.

You are digging in deep and taking fragments of a post out of context here. Also, there are three shots, one hole in the windshield, the far lower corner of it.

Jimmy. I watched the video. Looked to me that she was trying to turn the van away from the officer. I incredibly doubt that this woman, in a fit of sudden rage, intended to murder this officer. Agree?

 

[unapologetic]

"SHAME!"
SHAME?
Seriously?
Asasholes, or anybody, are never shamed, or influnced in any way, by yelling "shame" at them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

miss the windshield from point blank range,

Didn't miss the windsheld.

that woman was going to hit the ICE officer. It was self-defense.

He put himself in harm's way. Stepped in front to stop her.

You are digging in deep and taking fragments of a post out of context here. Also, there are three shots, one hole in the windshield, the far lower corner of it.

Jimmy. I watched the video. Looked to me that she was trying to turn the van away from the officer. I incredibly doubt that this woman, in a fit of sudden rage, intended to murder this officer. Agree?

My point was that in order for her to be targeting the officer, it should be impossible for the Officer to fire defensive shots, hit the driver, but miss the windshield twice and in the one shot that hits is in the far right corner. To me, the windshield is the most damning piece of evidence against the ICE officer.

 

[unapologetic]

The Four Seconds Everyone Missed

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't condone her murder, but

That's one word too many. The rest is pure propaganda to downplay the simple fact that she was exercising her right to free assembly and protest, and was shot dead while doing so, by a government agent who the President is now protecting from any legal consequences.

It matters not one whit if this was her first protest, or her nine thousand seven hundred and sixty first. Nor does it matter one iota whether she was known to ICE or not.

They killed her, in contravention of the law. She was murdered. Her killer is known. He should be tried, and (given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt) convicted, and jailed for a very long time.

No fair, unbiased trial for him?
I thought you, like me, would be a fan of "innocent until proven guilty".
(But you have already decided his guilt it seems.)

Innocent until "proven" guilty is for courts.

We have evidence from many angles, and piles of well stated expert statements about the facts of the day in question.

The trial is already being biased in the murderer's favor, though.

You do realize that someone spotted the murder scene, Good's SUV with bullet holes and a bloodied airbag being moved on a flatbed with the windows down on the highway, yeah?

That's not really conducive to an unbiased trial tainting evidence with highway.

The trial here should be more of a formality: someone murdered a woman, and lied about it and the administration lied about it, and the lie is blatant!

We can all watch him doing things law enforcement professionals are specifically trained not to do, then fires on her three times when she is attempting to flee and presents no harm, then he calls her an epithet. Then he lied about the events in question, and we know this because we all fucking have eyes.

 

[Toni]

I don't condone her murder, but

That's one word too many. The rest is pure propaganda to downplay the simple fact that she was exercising her right to free assembly and protest, and was shot dead while doing so, by a government agent who the President is now protecting from any legal consequences.

It matters not one whit if this was her first protest, or her nine thousand seven hundred and sixty first. Nor does it matter one iota whether she was known to ICE or not.

They killed her, in contravention of the law. She was murdered. Her killer is known. He should be tried, and (given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt) convicted, and jailed for a very long time.

No fair, unbiased trial for him?
I thought you, like me, would be a fan of "innocent until proven guilty".
(But you have already decided his guilt it seems.)

Suppose there was a video of someone standing behind someone who is bound and gagged and the standing person swings a sword and decapitated the seated person. The person holding the sword and decapitating the seated person then turns their video recording over to authorities to exonerate themselves.

While I absolutely agree with the whole innocent until proven guilty and that the accused should have the opportunity to mount as effective a defense as possible, including offering context, background and their own video, were I the attorney of either the ICE officer or the fictional beheader, I would strongly advise my client to take a deal if one was offered.

 

[Millrat]

An angle I hadn’t seen before and one that sadly appears to support the defence or at least cast reasonable doubt about the ability to retreat. I’m not sure how culpable a court will find him for getting in the path of the vehicle.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Four Seconds Everyone Missed

Could you summarize his points?

 

[laughing dog]

The Four Seconds Everyone Missed

Could you summarize his points?

He shows that while Ms Goode’s car is in reverse, the killer is pulling his firearm out. So he had decided to shoot before he was in “danger”.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

An angle I hadn’t seen before and one that sadly appears to support the defence or at least cast reasonable doubt about the ability to retreat. I’m not sure how culpable a court will find him for getting in the path of the vehicle.

Um why is there a significant blur out in the first video? If the point was to make things clearer, that didn't.

 

[barbos]

I listened to retired police officer (russian-american at that) who is pro-authority and he said that you don't put yourself in front of the car but if you do, then you should let it go if they merely try to leave. That is police procedure for that.

It's also just common sense. If the goal is to get the car to stop quickly before it runs you over, shooting the driver to death while their foot is still on the gas makes no more logical sense than it is ethically defensible. If the goal is a criminal conviction, the video would show intent to kill on the part of the driver. Jump out of the way like normal unintelligent human being, and then arrest them for attempted homicide. Playing with guns solved neither problem, endangered all parties, and opened the "officer" up to an accusation of murder.

All true, but she is dead becasue she consciously put herself into the confrontation with poorly trained idiots with guns who on top of that, let's be honest, are being constantly harassed by others like her. Was it really worth it?
Not all of the law enforcement are exemplary. They even make mistakes sometimes.

 

[Millrat]

An angle I hadn’t seen before and one that sadly appears to support the defence or at least cast reasonable doubt about the ability to retreat. I’m not sure how culpable a court will find him for getting in the path of the vehicle.

Um why is there a significant blur out in the first video? If the point was to make things clearer, that didn't.

Because it shows a violent murder that may disturb some viewers. There’s plenty of unblurred versions that most people have seen, but this video isn’t about that angle anyway.

 

[Tigers!]

I don't condone her murder, but

That's one word too many. The rest is pure propaganda to downplay the simple fact that she was exercising her right to free assembly and protest, and was shot dead while doing so, by a government agent who the President is now protecting from any legal consequences.

It matters not one whit if this was her first protest, or her nine thousand seven hundred and sixty first. Nor does it matter one iota whether she was known to ICE or not.

They killed her, in contravention of the law. She was murdered. Her killer is known. He should be tried, and (given the overwhelming evidence of his guilt) convicted, and jailed for a very long time.

No fair, unbiased trial for him?

Of course there should be. I specifically said so.

I thought you, like me, would be a fan of "innocent until proven guilty".

I am.

(But you have already decided his guilt it seems.)

I have - because the evidence I have seen is overwhelming and damning. But if a jury presented with the admissable facts in a court of law disagrees, then I would fine with that. Surprised, but fine.

The proem here is that it seems unlikely that any such trial will occur.

I thought you, like me, would be a fan of justice being done, and being seen to be done.

I am a big fan of justice being done and being seen to de done.. Fair trial being central to that for all parties.
I am also aware of persons being released from prison after 10, 15 , 20... years - imprisoned on evidence that at the time was seen/thought to be overwhelming of the suspect being guilty.
It would be much better to avoid a) innocent party being jailed or b) guilty going free at the time of the trial.

 

[zorq]

Images hidden to avoid clogging the page.

Show

The officer wasn't in front of the car for any of the three shots fired.

Show

Only one of the shots fired at Ms. Good entered through the windshield and it entered from near the corner.

Show

Speculative angles, but not unreasonable.

Show

The closeup frame from the first shot.

Show

The closeup frame from the last shot.



There have been cases where police moved out of the way of moving vehicle and still exercised deadly force.

Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.”

Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.”

Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.”

Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.”

 

[Politesse]

I listened to retired police officer (russian-american at that) who is pro-authority and he said that you don't put yourself in front of the car but if you do, then you should let it go if they merely try to leave. That is police procedure for that.

It's also just common sense. If the goal is to get the car to stop quickly before it runs you over, shooting the driver to death while their foot is still on the gas makes no more logical sense than it is ethically defensible. If the goal is a criminal conviction, the video would show intent to kill on the part of the driver. Jump out of the way like normal unintelligent human being, and then arrest them for attempted homicide. Playing with guns solved neither problem, endangered all parties, and opened the "officer" up to an accusation of murder.

All true, but she is dead becasue she consciously put herself into the confrontation with poorly trained idiots with guns who on top of that, let's be honest, are being constantly harassed by others like her. Was it really worth it?
Not all of the law enforcement are exemplary. They even make mistakes sometimes.

Oh yes, they do. I make mistakes, too. Yesterday, I accidentally cut someone off in traffic. Mea Culpa! Last week, I forgot to water my trees before going to bed, and they weren't happy about it the next day, the vibes in the yard were all off.

But there's different kinds of mistakes, you know? Some mistakes are minor goofs. Some are crimes. And some are violations of the most basic rights of an American citizen - life, and liberty. If the "mistake" in question is illegally murdering a civilian for expressing their first amendment rights? The criminal who made that particular mistake should receive a trial before a jury of their peers as is their right, and if they are found guilty, shortly thereafter an expedient trip to the electric chair, because for a federal agent, that is the penalty for committing a capital crime* in furtherance of their duties. This isn't about being "nice". This is murder we're talking about, and violation of rights more befitting a second-world shithole than an affluent nation. Our president may suck your emperor's hairless dick for ballroom-gilding money, but this still isn't Russia. Not yet, anyway.

* defined under the law as treason, espionage, murder, large-scale drug trafficking, or the attempted murder of a witness.

 

[barbos]

but this still isn't Russia. Not yet, anyway.

Well, in Russia police rarely shoot people. In this particular situation they would not even pull their guns.
But you are right, In Russia people in general are less entitled to harass the police.

 

[barbos]

I look at two videos from different angles and can't make sense of them.
The second (grainy) video shows her actually hitting that ICE agent.
The first shows him easily avoiding her car while shooting it. Yes, I know that the agent is behind another one.
And it looks that she and her girlfriend went there with the specific goal of harassing ICE and taking video of it.

 

[robnisch]

What ICE Agents Can and Cannot Legally Do During Arrests | SG Legal Group

As an immigration attorney at SG Legal Group, I often hear questions about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the limits of their authority. News reports of plain-clothed agents using unmarked vehicles or knocking on doors early in the morning can be alarming.

www.sglegalgroup.com

ICE agents need a warrant just like any PO.
They sometimes have an Administrative Warrant that is not signed by a judge.
You can ignore those.
But be ready to be harassed.

 

[Jarhyn]

I listened to retired police officer (russian-american at that) who is pro-authority and he said that you don't put yourself in front of the car but if you do, then you should let it go if they merely try to leave. That is police procedure for that.

It's also just common sense. If the goal is to get the car to stop quickly before it runs you over, shooting the driver to death while their foot is still on the gas makes no more logical sense than it is ethically defensible. If the goal is a criminal conviction, the video would show intent to kill on the part of the driver. Jump out of the way like normal unintelligent human being, and then arrest them for attempted homicide. Playing with guns solved neither problem, endangered all parties, and opened the "officer" up to an accusation of murder.

All true, but she is dead becasue she consciously put herself into the confrontation with poorly trained idiots with guns who on top of that, let's be honest, are being constantly harassed by others like her. Was it really worth it?
Not all of the law enforcement are exemplary. They even make mistakes sometimes.

Oh yes, they do. I make mistakes, too. Yesterday, I accidentally cut someone off in traffic. Mea Culpa! Last week, I forgot to water my trees before going to bed, and they weren't happy about it the next day, the vibes in the yard were all off.

But there's different kinds of mistakes, you know? Some mistakes are minor goofs. Some are crimes. And some are violations of the most basic rights of an American citizen - life, and liberty. If the "mistake" in question is illegally murdering a civilian for expressing their first amendment rights? The criminal who made that particular mistake should receive a trial before a jury of their peers as is their right, and if they are found guilty, shortly thereafter an expedient trip to the electric chair, because for a federal agent, that is the penalty for committing a capital crime* in furtherance of their duties. This isn't about being "nice". This is murder we're talking about, and violation of rights more befitting a second-world shithole than an affluent nation. Our president may suck your emperor's hairless dick for ballroom-gilding money, but this still isn't Russia. Not yet, anyway.

* defined under the law as treason, espionage, murder, large-scale drug trafficking, or the attempted murder of a witness.

I would much rather they be put in isolation such that the only exit is feet-first by their own hand, but yes.