ICE told to get the eff out

pete01 · 2026-01-18T10:36:38+0000

In my expert opinion (and I have watched my cousin Vinny over 5 times)

She didnt deserve to die.

Highway Man · 2026-01-18T10:37:22+0000

pete01 said:
In my expert opinion (and I have watched my cousin Vinny over 5 times)

She didnt deserve to die.

You may be right, but only on his choice of suit.

MNW67 · 2026-01-18T10:44:15+0000

motorbiking said:
This kills your shot 1 may be lawful but 2-4 weren't argument. All shots were lawful or no shots were lawful.

In the Good, case applying similar logic, the threat doesn't end until the vehicle stops moving.

You are applying a completely different test based on completely different facts. Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014) was about a high speed car chase.

To date you have been arguing that the agent shot Renee in self defence.

You are now swerving to the argument that it was about protecting the general public.

Highway Man · 2026-01-18T10:45:49+0000

MNW67 said:
You are now swerving to the argument that it was about protecting the general public.

It goes hand in hand that if she is prepared to harm an armed ICE agent, what would stop her from harming others,

motorbiking · 2026-01-18T10:46:11+0000

The action was about 4 1/2 minutes in.

Door was open, car was stopped, cop was next to the car, suspect decided to flee, cop jumps on the car and fires two shots killing the driver. Cop was perfectly capable of stepping away from the danger, or merely remaining where he was (out of danger) but he chose to jump on the car

If his shooting was lawful, I can't see a different outcome for Good v Ross.

Ross' officer created jeopardy was much lower than in this case.

MNW67 · 2026-01-18T10:46:47+0000

Highway Man said:
It goes hand in hand that if she is prepared to harm an armed ICE agent, what would stop her from harming others,

It opens a whole new angle to discuss!

Vinty · 2026-01-18T10:51:08+0000

motorbiking said:
how come there was a bullet hole in the windscreen?

It appears the first shot went through the windshield as she was passing him and not actually at him.

from Reuters.

The videos reviewed by Reuters show Ross - identified in the scenes below as ICE agent 1 - standing in front of the moving vehicle when he initially draws his firearm.

He opens fire one second later, firing three shots. The first pierces the windshield of Good’s car as the vehicle moves past him. The second and third shots were fired into the driver’s side of the vehicle as it continues moving past him.

motorbiking · 2026-01-18T10:51:29+0000

Yep like the other cases.

You've got some serious heavy lifting to overcome the case law.

motorbiking · 2026-01-18T10:57:37+0000

MNW67 said:
You are applying a completely different test based on completely different facts. That case was about a high speed car chase.

To date you have been arguing that the agent shot Renee in self defence.

You are now swerving to the argument that it was about protecting the general public.

You are still misunderstanding the grounds for lawful use of deadly force and the case law kills any chance you have of separating shot 1 from 2-4.
My money is on no criminal charges and summary judgment of any civil lawsuit.

Odds · 2026-01-18T10:58:25+0000

Brigadier said:
How would you know?

ICE don't.

Post from NowThis Impact

What this reveals is that ICE is not being very picky, or at least doing its research, on who it's hiring.

youtube.com

The Trump administration has reduced training time from a few months to a few weeks for ICE agents. This is a factor in the increasing use of violence and intimidation meted out to protestors. During Obama's crackdown on illegals, nothing remotely on this scale of violent action was considered necessary - Trump is using fear and intimidation in this pogrom.

Highway Man · 2026-01-18T10:59:03+0000

Vinty said:
It appears the first shot went through the windshield as she was passing him and not actually at him.

from Reuters.

The videos reviewed by Reuters show Ross - identified in the scenes below as ICE agent 1 - standing in front of the moving vehicle when he initially draws his firearm.

He opens fire one second later, firing three shots. The first pierces the windshield of Good’s car as the vehicle moves past him. The second and third shots were fired into the driver’s side of the vehicle as it continues moving past him.

He shot at her whilst driving towards him, the first shot was taken as the car accelerated. It wasn't a stationary car therefore between the shots her car would have been at his side.

MNW67 · 2026-01-18T10:59:36+0000

motorbiking said:
The action was about 4 1/2 minutes in.

Door was open, car was stopped, cop was next to the car, suspect decided to flee, cop jumps on the car and fires two shots killing the driver. Cop was perfectly capable of stepping away from the danger, or merely remaining where he was (out of danger) but he chose to jump on the car

If his shooting was lawful, I can't see a different outcome for Good v Ross.

Ross' officer created jeopardy was much lower than in this case.

Is this a new argument. About whether the agent put himself in jeopardy.

If so, it has no bearing on the other issues we have been discussing.

Vinty · 2026-01-18T11:00:34+0000

motorbiking said:
Yep like the other cases.

You've got some serious heavy lifting to overcome the case law.

What is case law, are law enforcement legally entitled to shoot someone if they refuse to stop their car when ordered to do so.

Highway Man · 2026-01-18T11:01:26+0000

Odds said:
The Trump administration has reduced training time from a few months to a few weeks for ICE agents. This is a factor in the increasing use of violence and intimidation meted out to protestors. During Obama's crackdown on illegals, nothing remotely on this scale of violent action was considered necessary - Trump is using fear and intimidation in this pogrom.

Obama's crackdown was mainly aimed at the point of entry into the country at the borders by refusing entry and turning them back. ICE is going into the community to do the same thing only at their homes rather than at the border.

MNW67 · 2026-01-18T11:02:57+0000

motorbiking said:
You are still misunderstanding the grounds for lawful use of deadly force and the case law kills any chance you have of separating shot 1 from 2-4.
My money is on no criminal charges and summary judgment of any civil lawsuit.

Mine too, because of Trump's influence and immunity etc.

But that's a total cop out.

The law is clear on separating the first shot from the others. However many times you try to deny it. The law says that when the danger is over, you must stop firing. So far you have misunderstood almost every legal point we have discussed, including the ruling in Barnes vs Felix.

ICE told to get the eff out

Similar threads