The Cold Blooded Murder Of Renee Good

[Derec]

It isn’t actually ‘hard’ to deport people who have committed crimes.

It would not be, if the local governments were allowed to cooperate with the feds instead of protecting illegals. Like for example, requesting a felonious illegal on a local warrant, but then releasing him into the community (where he killed a woman) instead of handing him back to the feds.

It takes resources, of course. But the GOP is loathe to fund …anything at all, except ICE and trinkets for billionaires.

Yes, there is much blame on both sides. I am not the one here who is refusing to acknowledge faults with the GOP. It is your side that can't admit any fault with Dems here.

Also, what "trinkets" do you have in mind? Please be specific.

 

[Tigers!]

Also, other than Elon, who are the other Musks?

I think he said Musks because 'olagarcs' is hard to spell.

So hard to spell in fact that you and I would get it wrong.
oligarchs

Dems should have had an easy time winning against Trump in both 2016 and 2024. Losing to him twice was quite a feat indeed.

The Dems DID beat him, once. Rump only won when running against women. Not because they were Democrats.

But they were members of the union of sets 'Women' & 'Democrats' so technically Derec is correct. (Why was he elected twice!)

 

[laughing dog]

That does not mean that Dems could have prevented him getting power had they not embraced the "no human is illegal" nonsense.

No human is illegal. It is sick to think otherwise:

 

[Toni]

I'm curious: Exactly what are those 'sanctuary' policies?

Local governments aiding and abetting illegal immigration.
Usually by not honoring immigration detainers filed by the feds, releasing even criminal illegals back into the community instead of surrendering them to ICE for deportation.
But sometimes it's even worse. Take the case of García Zárate for example. He was already in custody of the feds when SF requested him for an outstanding drug warrant. But instead of returning him, SF released him less then a month later. He then murdered an innocent woman, but got away with it due to a leftist SF jury acquitting him.

How did they lead to 'this over reach?' (I am assuming that you mean Trump's massive ICE deployment but if I'm wrong, please tell me).

Very simple. Dems' tone deafness on illegal migration helped Trump get reelected. You had the massive influx due to abuse of the asylum process and another high-profile murder by a released illegal, this time in Georgia. José Ibarra murdered the 22 year old Laken Riley. The perp was caught on the border in 2022, but was released under "catch and release" policies. He had been arrested since then, but was always released. Note that the Laken Riley Act, inspired by this case, was opposed by most Democrats.

My belief is that over-reach is entirely the responsibility of those who overstep their authority or respond with disproportionate reaction.

Overreach can go in both directions. I think sanctuary policies are an overreach, as is lax enforcement at the border, where migrants apprehended are just released into the US.

My belief re: the situation in Minnesota is that Trump is exacting revenge against Minnesota/Tim Walz because Walz had the audacity to run on the opposing ticket in the last election and called Trump weird.

Possible. Trump is a very petty man.

I agree with it not being great that Walz called Trump weird.

And yet that was what propelled him to contender status in the 2024 Veepstakes. Kamala ran a very vibes-heavy campaign and he fit with that. It turned out to be a mistake.

adjudicated rapist,

EJC's accusation lacks credibility, and civil courts get it wrong a lot because the burden of proof is very low which does not minimize Type I errors.

is almost certainly (I'm being kind here) a pedophile and kiddie rapist,

What evidence is there of that?

I also think that Trump is looking for an excuse to enact the Insurrection Act.

Again, very possible.
That does not mean that Dems could have prevented him getting power had they not embraced the "no human is illegal" nonsense.

I don’t have time to address each of your points at this moment but I will ask exactly how it is that you can be ignorant of the fact that a jury found that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll or that it is known that Trump is heavily featured in the Epstein files and that multiple women have come forward to tell of the sexual abuse and assaults they suffered at Trump’s hands when they were still children—too young to get a learner’s permit, too young to have consented even if the sexual contact had been consensual and that in fact at least some of them were threatened with death for their families if they told?

García Zárate was found innocent of charges against him by a jury. This is how the legal system here works: if you are found not guilty, you are released. If the Feds had wanted him, surely they knew where to find him. His trial and Aquitaine was well publicized.

Who was POTUS at the time? Oh, yeah: Mr. Tough on Immigration himself: Trump.

Are you aware that entering the US without appropriate documentation is not a criminal offense but a civil offense? So is speeding or running a stop sign. Local authorities are not empowered to deport someone.

Do you know why our immigration system is so dysfunctional? Because passing a good immigration reform bill would remove the scary bread and butter issue that makes xenophobes and racists tremble in their tiny little hearts and vote Rethuglican.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The shooter violated those rules.

… in order to murder a defenseless woman who wouldn’t submit to him.

She did violate a law. He commanded her to get out of the vehicle (perhaps she didn't hear him?). When she didn't comply, she committed a misdemeanor. An offense that usually results in a small fine. Sometimes an arrest and immediate release at the jail pending a court date. But he was rattled and ill trained. And maybe in a bad mood. So, he shot her. Three times.

 

[Elixir]

The shooter violated those rules.

… in order to murder a defenseless woman who wouldn’t submit to him.

She did violate a law. He commanded her to get out of the vehicle (perhaps she didn't hear him?). When she didn't comply, she committed a misdemeanor. An offense that usually results in a small fine. Sometimes an arrest and immediate release at the jail pending a court date. But he was rattled and ill trained. And maybe in a bad mood. So, he shot her. Three times.

He terrified her. As he amply demonstated, she had good reason to be terrified of him. Despite expecting a disproportionately violent result had she submitted to his demand that she get out of the car, she tried to flee and he murdered the "fucking bitch!! Bet she didn't expect THAT! heh heh"

 

[KCFlyer]

Just curious, but doesn't most police training teach officers NOT to put themselves in front of any vehicle?

Yes it's been mentioned here several times that almost all police forces prohibit getting in front of the car and prohibit firing into a moving car, with limited exceptions. DHS has such rules. The shooter violated those rules.

They all violated the rules. They had no legal right to approach the two women in the first place. The protest was not interfering in the ICE operation at all therefore legal.

With this "Fuck Around and Find Out" attitude that has surrounded the Trump administration, I kind of feel like that ICE agent had been waiting for this moment.

 

[crazyfingers]

Just curious, but doesn't most police training teach officers NOT to put themselves in front of any vehicle?

Yes it's been mentioned here several times that almost all police forces prohibit getting in front of the car and prohibit firing into a moving car, with limited exceptions. DHS has such rules. The shooter violated those rules.

They all violated the rules. They had no legal right to approach the two women in the first place. The protest was not interfering in the ICE operation at all therefore legal.

With this "Fuck Around and Find Out" attitude that has surrounded the Trump administration, I kind of feel like that ICE agent had been waiting for this moment.

I have no doubt that Trump was waiting for it. I believe he wants to escalate the violence to send in troops for the kicks of it.

 

[bilby]

She did violate a law. He commanded her to get out of the vehicle

Is non-compliance with such a command against the law? Seems to me it's a right under the fourth amendment to remain in your vehicle unless either a warrant for a seach of the vehicle, or a warrant for your arrest, is produced. So any law violated by such non-compliance would be unconstitutional and invalid.

And when did ordinary citizens come under the command of the government or its agents? If you are a member of the armed forces, you are expected to obey lawful commands from superior officers; But ordinary citizens surely are subject only to requests, not commands, in any nation that pays even lip-service to personal freedom.

 

[Harry Bosch]

She did violate a law. He commanded her to get out of the vehicle

Is non-compliance with such a command against the law? Seems to me it's a right under the fourth amendment to remain in your vehicle unless either a warrant for a seach of the vehicle, or a warrant for your arrest, is produced. So any law violated by such non-compliance would be unconstitutional and invalid.

And when did ordinary citizens come under the command of the government or its agents? If you are a member of the armed forces, you are expected to obey lawful commands from superior officers; But ordinary citizens surely are subject only to requests, not commands, in any nation that pays even lip-service to personal freedom.

Well, let me step back. I'm obviously not a lawyer. And anyone contemplating these actions, should speak with one first. Don't rely on a dumb fucker like me. But below is my understanding:

"Law enforcement officers have well-established authority to order a driver or passenger out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop. The Supreme Court case Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) set the precedent, ruling that officers can order drivers to exit their vehicles, reasoning that officer safety outweighs the minimal intrusion on personal liberty. This decision was extended to passengers in Maryland v. Wilson (1997), allowing officers to require passengers to exit for similar safety concerns."

To answer your post above, I don't know if the military and/or agents are equal to a "law enforcement officer".

But my earlier point, was that at best, she committed a misdemeanor: and then was executed for this.

 

[Gospel]

She did violate a law. He commanded her to get out of the vehicle

Is non-compliance with such a command against the law? Seems to me it's a right under the fourth amendment to remain in your vehicle unless either a warrant for a seach of the vehicle, or a warrant for your arrest, is produced. So any law violated by such non-compliance would be unconstitutional and invalid.

And when did ordinary citizens come under the command of the government or its agents? If you are a member of the armed forces, you are expected to obey lawful commands from superior officers; But ordinary citizens surely are subject only to requests, not commands, in any nation that pays even lip-service to personal freedom.

Well, let me step back. I'm obviously not a lawyer. And anyone contemplating these actions, should speak with one first. Don't rely on a dumb fucker like me. But below is my understanding:

"Law enforcement officers have well-established authority to order a driver or passenger out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop. The Supreme Court case Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) set the precedent, ruling that officers can order drivers to exit their vehicles, reasoning that officer safety outweighs the minimal intrusion on personal liberty. This decision was extended to passengers in Maryland v. Wilson (1997), allowing officers to require passengers to exit for similar safety concerns."

To answer your post above, I don't know if the military and/or agents are equal to a "law enforcement officer".

But my earlier point, was that at best, she committed a misdemeanor: and then was executed for this.

You’re leaving out a critical part of that ruling: “lawful traffic stop.” Whether intentional or not, it’s a significant omission, since that condition is central to the Court’s reasoning and the scope of the authority being discussed.

Edit: With that said, this ultimately comes down to ICE’s legal authority, specifically whether they’re even permitted to conduct traffic stops in the first place, and whether Good was actually interfering with ICE operations as they claimed.

 

[Harry Bosch]

She did violate a law. He commanded her to get out of the vehicle

Is non-compliance with such a command against the law? Seems to me it's a right under the fourth amendment to remain in your vehicle unless either a warrant for a seach of the vehicle, or a warrant for your arrest, is produced. So any law violated by such non-compliance would be unconstitutional and invalid.

And when did ordinary citizens come under the command of the government or its agents? If you are a member of the armed forces, you are expected to obey lawful commands from superior officers; But ordinary citizens surely are subject only to requests, not commands, in any nation that pays even lip-service to personal freedom.

Well, let me step back. I'm obviously not a lawyer. And anyone contemplating these actions, should speak with one first. Don't rely on a dumb fucker like me. But below is my understanding:

"Law enforcement officers have well-established authority to order a driver or passenger out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop. The Supreme Court case Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) set the precedent, ruling that officers can order drivers to exit their vehicles, reasoning that officer safety outweighs the minimal intrusion on personal liberty. This decision was extended to passengers in Maryland v. Wilson (1997), allowing officers to require passengers to exit for similar safety concerns."

To answer your post above, I don't know if the military and/or agents are equal to a "law enforcement officer".

But my earlier point, was that at best, she committed a misdemeanor: and then was executed for this.

You’re leaving out a critical part of that ruling: “lawful traffic stop.” Whether intentional or not, it’s a significant omission, since that condition is central to the Court’s reasoning and the scope of the authority being discussed.

You got me. But it was an unintentional omission. I'm not on ICE's side here in the least. Again, I'm not a lawyer. I'm done in this thread.

 

[ZiprHead]

The shooter violated those rules.

… in order to murder a defenseless woman who wouldn’t submit to him.

She did violate a law. He commanded her to get out of the vehicle (perhaps she didn't hear him?). When she didn't comply, she committed a misdemeanor. An offense that usually results in a small fine. Sometimes an arrest and immediate release at the jail pending a court date. But he was rattled and ill trained. And maybe in a bad mood. So, he shot her. Three times.

Violating an unjust order is not a crime. ICE had no probable cause to approach her and order her to do anything.

 

[Elixir]

That is SO FALSE that it confirms our impression that you are just another low-information right-wing bigot.

Act surprised.

 

[bilby]

Law enforcement officers have well-established authority to order a driver or passenger out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop.

The situation we are discussing was not a lawful traffic stop. ICE don't book drivers for having a broken tail-light, or for speeding. To lawfully stop traffic, they would require a warrant, or at the very least, probable cause to believe that an immigration offence was in progress.

 

[Derec]

I don’t have time to address each of your points at this moment but I will ask exactly how it is that you can be ignorant of the fact that a jury found that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll

I am not ignorant of that verdict. That's why I explicitly addressed it when I wrote "civil courts get it wrong a lot because the burden of proof is very low which does not minimize Type I errors."
I stand by my opinion that EJC's claims lack credibility or evidence.

or that it is known that Trump is heavily featured in the Epstein files and that multiple women have come forward to tell of the sexual abuse and assaults they suffered at Trump’s hands when they were still children—too young to get a learner’s permit, too young to have consented even if the sexual contact had been consensual and that in fact at least some of them were threatened with death for their families if they told?

I know there have been accusations, but there hasn't been anything concrete.

García Zárate was found innocent of charges against him by a jury.

Wrong. Courts do not find people "innocent" in the US. He was found "not guilty" on the murder charge by a jury. That was a miscarriage of justice, as there was no doubt that he did it.

This is how the legal system here works: if you are found not guilty, you are released.

Well, not in this case. He was not released after that trial, because he was also found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

If the Feds had wanted him, surely they knew where to find him. His trial and Aquitaine was well publicized.

Aquitaine? Your most epic misspelling yet!
In any case, you are seriously mixing up the timeline here.
The issue is not him being released after this trial. The issue is that he was released by SF instead of being given back to the Feds, after which he roamed the city and killed Kate Steinle. Her murder could have been prevented had SF not held fast to their "sanctuary" policy.

Who was POTUS at the time? Oh, yeah: Mr. Tough on Immigration himself: Trump.

Actually, it was Obama who was president in 2015 when the release and murder happened. I do not necessarily fault him for this, as it was SF officials who released him. However, I think it was kind of naïve of Obama's ICE officials to think that SF would act in good faith when they requested GZ for a local drug warrant.

Let me ask you point blank: do you support the behavior of SF here? Where a city requested that an illegal be placed in their custody for a local warrant, only to release him and not give him back to ICE?

Are you aware that entering the US without appropriate documentation is not a criminal offense but a civil offense?

Actually, it is a criminal offense:

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b)Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1)at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2)twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

From here.

During the 2020 campaign, especially during the Summer 2019 primary debates, there were several Democrats who wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration. They have not prevailed though, but it shows how far left the Democratic Party had moved even since Obama.

Note that Kamala Harris had also raised her hand. She never should have been the 2024 nominee - Trump 2.0 would have been spared us had we had a better candidate.
Biden just looked confused by the question.

So is speeding or running a stop sign.

Depending on the jurisdiction, those may be misdemeanor crimes.

Local authorities are not empowered to deport someone.

No, but they can - and should - honor immigration detainers. Especially when the illegal alien is a felon. And even more especially when he or she was already in federal custody but was placed in your custody on your request.

Do you know why our immigration system is so dysfunctional? Because passing a good immigration reform bill would remove the scary bread and butter issue that makes xenophobes and racists tremble in their tiny little hearts and vote Rethuglican.

There is blame to go on both sides. While that reform bill was far from perfect, Republicans blocked it to have a campaign issue, yes.
At the same time, name-calling people, defaming them as "xenophobes" and "racists" just because they are opposed to illegal and otherwise mass migration is completely uncalled for, and I think that's another reason sufficient number of independents ended up voting for Trump again. After all, MAGA base is maybe 30% of the electorate. He could not have won without Dems alienating millions. After all, Trump got 49.8% of the vote against Kamala, and 46.1% against Hillary. Even when he lost against Biden, he still got 46.8% - far more than just his MAGA base.
Name calling people that disagree with you on an issue is a good way to lose friends and alienate them. You'd think Dems learned something from Hillary's "basket of deplorables" debacle.

 

[Toni]

I don’t have time to address each of your points at this moment but I will ask exactly how it is that you can be ignorant of the fact that a jury found that Trump raped E. Jean Carroll

I am not ignorant of that verdict. That's why I explicitly addressed it when I wrote "civil courts get it wrong a lot because the burden of proof is very low which does not minimize Type I errors."
I stand by my opinion that EJC's claims lack credibility or evidence.

or that it is known that Trump is heavily featured in the Epstein files and that multiple women have come forward to tell of the sexual abuse and assaults they suffered at Trump’s hands when they were still children—too young to get a learner’s permit, too young to have consented even if the sexual contact had been consensual and that in fact at least some of them were threatened with death for their families if they told?

I know there have been accusations, but there hasn't been anything concrete.

García Zárate was found innocent of charges against him by a jury.

Wrong. Courts do not find people "innocent" in the US. He was found "not guilty" on the murder charge by a jury. That was a miscarriage of justice, as there was no doubt that he did it.

This is how the legal system here works: if you are found not guilty, you are released.

Well, not in this case. He was not released after that trial, because he was also found guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

If the Feds had wanted him, surely they knew where to find him. His trial and Aquitaine was well publicized.

Aquitaine? Your most epic misspelling yet!
In any case, you are seriously mixing up the timeline here.
The issue is not him being released after this trial. The issue is that he was released by SF instead of being given back to the Feds, after which he roamed the city and killed Kate Steinle. Her murder could have been prevented had SF not held fast to their "sanctuary" policy.

Who was POTUS at the time? Oh, yeah: Mr. Tough on Immigration himself: Trump.

Actually, it was Obama who was president in 2015 when the release and murder happened. I do not necessarily fault him for this, as it was SF officials who released him. However, I think it was kind of naïve of Obama's ICE officials to think that SF would act in good faith when they requested GZ for a local drug warrant.

Let me ask you point blank: do you support the behavior of SF here? Where a city requested that an illegal be placed in their custody for a local warrant, only to release him and not give him back to ICE?

Are you aware that entering the US without appropriate documentation is not a criminal offense but a civil offense?

Actually, it is a criminal offense:

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

(a)Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

(b)Improper time or place; civil penalties
Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—
(1)at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or
(2)twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

From here.

During the 2020 campaign, especially during the Summer 2019 primary debates, there were several Democrats who wanted to decriminalize illegal immigration. They have not prevailed though, but it shows how far left the Democratic Party had moved even since Obama.

Note that Kamala Harris had also raised her hand. She never should have been the 2024 nominee - Trump 2.0 would have been spared us had we had a better candidate.
Biden just looked confused by the question.

So is speeding or running a stop sign.

Depending on the jurisdiction, those may be misdemeanor crimes.

Local authorities are not empowered to deport someone.

No, but they can - and should - honor immigration detainers. Especially when the illegal alien is a felon. And even more especially when he or she was already in federal custody but was placed in your custody on your request.

Do you know why our immigration system is so dysfunctional? Because passing a good immigration reform bill would remove the scary bread and butter issue that makes xenophobes and racists tremble in their tiny little hearts and vote Rethuglican.

There is blame to go on both sides. While that reform bill was far from perfect, Republicans blocked it to have a campaign issue, yes.
At the same time, name-calling people, defaming them as "xenophobes" and "racists" just because they are opposed to illegal and otherwise mass migration is completely uncalled for, and I think that's another reason sufficient number of independents ended up voting for Trump again. After all, MAGA base is maybe 30% of the electorate. He could not have won without Dems alienating millions. After all, Trump got 49.8% of the vote against Kamala, and 46.1% against Hillary. Even when he lost against Biden, he still got 46.8% - far more than just his MAGA base.
Name calling people that disagree with you on an issue is a good way to lose friends and alienate them. You'd think Dems learned something from Hillary's "basket of deplorables" debacle.

I do understand why you don’t find E. Jean Carroll’s accusations credible. You’ve never likely been in that position. But a lot of women have been or similar enough that she sounded very credible. Given the time lapse, there would be little or no physical evidence but she did have the dress with semen and she did call a friend immediately after, who urged her NOT to call the police, given Trump’s wealth and fame. As awful as sexual assault is, the fear of not being believed or of being blamed is almost worse. You cannot imagine.

I will point out that you seem to have different standards for sexual assault depending upon who the victim is and who the accused perpetrator was. An observation.

Yes, my phone is sometimes absolutely evil and completely changes words. It’s already done so twice in this reply ( both correct word choices and spelled correctly). I don’t always catch the changes.

Did you know that one way that ICE can track someone is through an ankle bracelet? According to my sources ( law enforcement, attorneys) anyway. If ICE had wanted him, they could have found him.

There is no doubt that Garcia-Zarate was holding the weapon that killed Kate Steinle but he was found not guilty of murder Abd manslaughter by a jury, neither you nor o were in the courtroom so we cannot know exactly what evidence was presented or how the jury reached their decision. He was found guilty of weapons charges and faced deportation.

The thing that you and many other people fail to acknowledge is that aliens facing deportation still have legal rights in the aid, including to a hearing or trial to determine whether they are to be deported. Everyone on US soil has legal rights.

Crossing the border without legal documentation is not a criminal offense, whatever you may wish. It’s not. Full stop.

I definitely recognize that racists and xenophobes are almost always unwilling to admit to having even a whiff of racism. That does not change the fact that deciding in advance whether someone deserves the same rights as you do based upon their physical appearance/race or perceived race is indeed racism. Those I grew up around just thought they were being realistic. You’d have liked them, I think. Mostly I did as well —I loved and respected my father greatly but I knew he was wrong. Like many white people who grew up very poor, feeling superior to someone was a coping mechanism. You know the song: I Never Picked Cotton? Played on the radio a lot when I was a kid. Very popular in its day.

 

[Toni]

Ugh, before you jump on me: the site will not let me edit the typos in the post I just made. My night to make dinner so…

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I found one detail of this rather interesting. Good's partner was shocked that ICE used actual ammunition instead of rubber bullets.

Rubber bullets are used in riot control. Actual police actions use real bullets.

 

[ZiprHead]

I found one detail of this rather interesting. Good's partner was shocked that ICE used actual ammunition instead of rubber bullets.

Rubber bullets are used in riot control. Actual police actions use real bullets.

Your interests seem rather weird considering the facts of the case.