Below is my column in The Hill on the refusal of many to consider all of the facts in the shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis. The myopic analysis of press and pundits shows how the tragedy is being weaponized for political purposes.
Here is the column:
In a famous Indian parable, five blind men are brought to an elephant. Each feels a different part of the animal, and they come to radically different views of what an elephant is. It depended on which parts they touched, from tusk to tail.
The controversy over the shooting of Renee Nicole Good, 37, is a type of political elephant parable. People focus on only certain parts of the story to support what they want the case to mean.
Critics and supporters of the responsible officer have slowed down videotapes that last, in critical part, for only a few seconds.
The only difference is that, in this modern parable, many are just willfully blind, choosing not to see beyond their own rage.
This week, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) became the personification of rage, spewing profanities about ICE while declaring, shortly after the shooting, that the ICE officer was a murderer.
After immediately declaring the officer’s guilt, Frey spent day two lambasting the federal government for rushing to conclusions and demanding that his people play a role in the investigation.
As for his unhinged, profane diatribe, Frey mocked critics if he “offended their Disney princess ears.”
Frey fulfilled the parable most clearly in his use of statistics. He declared that fifty percent of shootings in the city this year were committed by ICE. He then later admitted that, since it was only Jan. 9, there had been only two shootings. Indeed, he could have argued that ICE was responsible for 100 percent of the shootings in the city on Jan. 7.
Again, the trick is to examine the smallest part of the animal and extrapolate to draw sweeping conclusions.
The recently released videotape from the responsible officer also shows how people will focus on insular elements rather than the “totality of the circumstances,” the standard for such cases established by the Supreme Court.
For example, many supporters of the officer are citing the obstruction and taunting by Good and her wife, who were reportedly working with an anti-ICE group. At one point, Becca Good dares the officer to do something as they blocked the road, telling the officer “Do you want to come at us? I say go and get yourself some lunch, big boy.”
For critics, they have focused on Renee Good’s last words: “That’s fine dude, I’m not mad at you, I’m not mad at any of you.” Whether Good was being peaceful or passive-aggressive, others are clearly very, very mad. They are using her statement to push protesters to the brink of violence.
Democratic leaders declared ICE to be “terrorists” and called for mass protests in the very same city that burned in 2020 after the George Floyd riots. Right on cue, one Black Lives Matter leader suggested that the prosecution of officers in the George Floyd case only occurred because protesters burned down the city. She told protesters to ignore pleas not to do it again. “Let me tell you this. We need justice and we need it now.”
Protesters in other cities chanted “Kristi Noem will hang” and “Save a Life, Kill an ICE.”
In the same presser where he condemned federal officials for jumping to conclusions, Frey not only reaffirmed that Good had been murdered but added that the officer was not actually injured as claimed. “The ICE agent walked away with a hip injury that he might as well have gotten from closing a refrigerator door with his hips,” he said. “He was not injured. Give me a break. No, he was not ran over. He walked out of there with a hop in his step.”
Few of us have been in Frey’s kitchen, but the latest videotape seems to show something more intense than an encounter with his fridge. The video shows the agent being hit by the vehicle as Good ignores orders to get out of the car, as Becca Good is screaming, “drive, drive, drive.”
Reasonable people can disagree on whether the officer should have discharged his weapon. Flight alone is not grounds for the use of lethal force. However, Good’s actions could also be interpreted as an intentional endangerment of the officer.
At a minimum, it was clearly reckless, as another officer was trying to reach into the vehicle and Good refused to yield to the effort to place her into custody. The Goods forced the confrontation, and Renee Good then escalated the level of danger by speeding toward an officer.
This is why the legal standard requires you to take in the entire elephant, not just insular parts.
While there may still be countervailing facts emerging from the investigation, the governing legal standard clearly favors the officer. It is Good’s actions, not her motivations, that are critical to determining whether excessive force was used. The officer’s cellphone video shows he had a fraction of a second to decide and fired after being struck by the car. (The same officer had been seriously hurt previously after being dragged by a car.)
The Justice Department’s guidances incorporate the standards outlined in past Supreme Court decisions, such as Graham v. Connor (1989). Again, individual elements can be viewed in isolation as favoring or disfavoring the use of force, including the severity of the crime at issue (in this case likely a misdemeanor) and whether the suspect was “attempting to evade arrest by flight.” The guidelines stress that “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
This tragedy shows that people watching the same videotapes can come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Take the speed of the vehicle. Some have noted that the car was traveling less than 10 miles per hour before it collided with another vehicle. However, the speed after the shooting of Good is immaterial. The relevant question is the distance and speed with reference to the officer. It was clearly speeding up and immediately struck the officer before Good was shot.
The same is true of those who note how the wheels appear to be turning toward or away from the officer. The fact is, Good struck the officer. That does not mean she intended to do so, but that does not matter. From the officer’s perspective, Good was ignoring orders while speeding toward him from just feet away.
There will likely be civil litigation. Democrats have also called for criminal charges. The arguments on both sides of this controversy show, at most, that the issue is debatable. The officer could be viewed as wrong and still be found to have acted within the scope of his discretion in responding to a threat. Any state effort to charge the officer will be removed to federal court, where he will likely have immunity based on this evidence.
The public would be wise to ignore conclusions reached blindly by either side. In an “Age of Rage,” we live in the land of the blind, where the one-eyed man is king. The public must remain clear-eyed and calm as the investigation proceeds in Minneapolis.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee – Clinton Subpoenas
Well tomorrow is the big day for Bill Clinton to answer his Epstein investigation subpoena.
Wednesday Hillary is scheduled to answer the Epstein investigation subpoena.
Place your Bets:
Bill to?: SHOW | NO SHOW
Hillary to?: SHOW | NO SHOW
A reminder of how they may play:
Oops: Clinton’s E-mail Technician Just Skipped His Congressional Hearing
Refusing to testify is the new pleading the Fifth.
By: Tina Nguyen ~ September 13, 2016
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/09/clinton-email-server-bryan-pagliano
It’s amazing what money can buy. Today’s little latrine piece is a prime example. Turley says, not less than 3 times that Renee Good “struck” Jonathan Ross with her car, so therefore, the law “clearly favors” Ross using deadly force. SHE DID NOT STRIKE HIM, and he was not injured–if he had been struck he would have been knocked down or at least knocked aside–and WHY did he place himself in harms way? That is contrary to ICE policy. He was NOT injured–contrary to Trump’s lie shortly after the incident that Ross was lying in a hospital with injuries. The entire theme of this piece is severely flawed–unlike the elephant that blindfolded men could not see–we, the public, definitely DID see what happened–on video, from multiple angles. We also heard eyewitness testimony–from multiple people standing at multiple angles. We are NOT blind. Nor are we deaf. We heard someone, most likely Ross, call dying Renee an “f….ing b..tch”. How could anyone kill an obviously peaceful soul like Renee and then call her names while she was bleeding out? Similarly, how could anyone deny her medical care and stand there and lie about having medics on scene—which they did not. WHY did the feds confiscate Renee’s body, her vehicle, Ross’s gun and the bullets and shut out local law enforcement? WHY is Ross in hiding? It stinks, Turley, and we’re not blind–all part of the Trump lie machine. Does any reasonable person believe that whoever examines the “evidence” will contradict Trump or ICE Barbie? I don’t think even MAGAs would believe this.
Because of Trump and his lie machine, it is a MAGA tactic to try to convince people not to believe their lying eyes and ears, and Turley is part of this–just like J6–Trump keeps trying to make the case that he: 1. won–he did NOT!; 2. that the insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol were “peaceful”—they were NOT!; 3. therefore, they were victims when they were sought out and prosecuted and deserved to be pardoned–they were NOT victims!.
Contrary to Turley’s sad efforts at advocacy: a. no one is focusing on any certain part of the video and eyewitness evidence in concluding that Jonathan Ross unjustly killed Renee Good; b. Becca Good’s comments to Ross are irrelevant–obviously, like Trump, Ross cannot handle a female questioning his perceived male superiority. Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll because she teased him about trying on lingerie; Ross didn’t like the “big boy” comment made by Becca, the fact that she was not intimidated by him or the fact that Renee didn’t immediately jump out of her car upon his command. Nevertheless, it IS the law that Ross cannot kill Renee because he didn’t like what Becca said, so there is no reason to even mention this—Becca’s comments are irrelevant; c. NO reasonable person could even argue that Renee Good’s last words on earth could be construed as “passive aggressive”–saying “I’m not mad at you, Dude” is as peaceful as conceivably possible; she was smiling; and, as Becca pointed out–they had the tag number for the vehicle, and she anticipated that ICE would call on them later on–Becca assured Ross that their address was correct. And, on this point, the MAGA lie machine is lying when they claim that Renee drove from Missouri to Minneapolis just to harass ICE. Renee and Becca lived in Minnesota. d. Ross did NOT have a “fraction of a second” to decide what to do. When it was clear that Renee wasn’t going to get out of the car and was trying to drive away–AFTER she had been commanded earlier to move her vehicle, which she was trying to do–why didn’t he just allow her to do so instead of killing her? HIS EGO–and that’s why Renee is dead. WHY does Ross seemingly have a habit of reaching into moving vehicles–something that good police practice condemns? This is the second time he’s done this–the first time, he got drug by a fleeing suspect. This time, he killed a peaceable woman in cold blood for no valid reason.
I notice that Turley has nothing to say about Trump lying about what happened, lying about Ross being hospitalized or about ICE Barbie lying about the ICE vehicle being stuck in snow, calling Renee Good a “domestic terrorist” and their doubling down on their lies. The American people are fed up and are taking to the streets. Turley–you are preaching to the MAGA choir here. We DO believe our lying eyes and ears.
Cry harder GiGi, no one hears you and no one cares.
Scroll Past Nutchachacha!
So says “today’s little latrine piece.”
“SHE DID NOT STRIKE HIM”
Without any doubt she did – you can hear him being hit in his cellphone video, where you can also tell that he has been hit by the fact that he is thrown off balance and loses control of the cell phone.
You can see him being hit in 3 other videos.
“he was not injured”
He was and he went to the hospital.
It does not appear he broke a leg
But contra mayor Frey he was hit by a 5000lb SUV not a 20lb refridgerator door.
“if he had been struck he would have been knocked down or at least knocked aside”
He was. again actually watch the videos.
“WHY did he place himself in harms way?”
He did not – he moved infront of a stopped car.
Good did not put the car into gear and start moving until he was 2/3 of the way past the front of her car.
“That is contrary to ICE policy.”
Another stupid lie – there is an ICE policy against stepping in front of a moving vehicile – with about a dozen exceptions.
There is no rule against stepping in front of stopped vehicles and an LEO may step in front of a moving vehcle when there is a threat to others which there was in this instance.
“He was NOT injured”
Of course he was – we just do not know how severely.
“the public, definitely DID see what happened–on video, from multiple angles.”
None are so blind as those who will not see.
The officer is seen being struck in EVERY video.
You must go frame by frame in the one from the rear.
But it is still clear even in that one that the officer was struck by the vehilce.
“We are NOT blind.”
Yet clearly you are.
“most likely Ross, call dying Renee an “f….ing b..tch”.”
Not Ross – Rosses cellphone has sound and he said absolutely nothing.
Regardless, her bahavior makes it clear she is a “f….ing b..tch”
“How could anyone kill an obviously peaceful soul like Renee”
People who interfere with Law enforcement are not peaceful souls
people who do not obey lawful orders of law enforcement are not peaceful souls.
People who recklessly flee to avoid arrest are not peaceful souls.
Carpet baggers – the Goods are not from Mineapolis, and likely paid agitators are not “peaceful souls”
“then call her names while she was bleeding out?”
She was shot in the head – she was dead instantly.
“Similarly, how could anyone deny her medical care”
She was dead – she did not need medical care.
“stand there and lie about having medics on scene”
They called 911 – there is video of that.
They are not going to let some stranger who claims to be a doctor who even if they are, are not a Trauma doctor contaminiate the scene.
“WHY did the feds confiscate Renee’s body, her vehicle, Ross’s gun and the bullets and shut out local law enforcement?”
Because it is a federal investigation.
” WHY is Ross in hiding? ”
Because left wing nuts have threatened to murder him.
You are the one incapable of beleiving your eyes and ears.
“no one is focusing on any certain part of the video and eyewitness evidence in concluding that Jonathan Ross unjustly killed Renee Good;”
Of course you are. Even if several of th e things that you claim were correct – this would still be justified.
All that is necescary to justify the shooting was For Good to flee the scene AND do so recklessly and a danger ot others.
There was an officer with his hands in her car trying to remove her by force – which he may do after she refused to comply with her order to get out of the car. That alone constitutes a serious threat of injury to others.
Regardless – hopefully this is a message to idiot left wing nuts
DO NOT INTERFERE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT.
It is a crime, and it can easily escalate to someone getting killed.
32% of those ICE arrests are convicted criminals. more than 35% are alleged to be criminals.
There is a very serious risk that an ICE arrest will turn violent. Any LEO arrest has the potential to turn violent.
Observe if you must. But do NOT distract, do NOT interfere.
If you do – there is a significantly increased change of violence and harm – and YOU are responsible.
“Ross cannot handle a female questioning”
Ross did not say a thing. He was professional and silent through this whole thing.
“Trump sexually assaulted E. Jean Carroll”
There is absolutely zero evidence that Trump and Carrol were ever in Bergdorfs together.
” Ross didn’t like the “big boy” comment made by Becca”
And you know this because you can read his mind ?
“the fact that she was not intimidated by him”
Not relevant and again requires mind reading.
“the fact that Renee didn’t immediately jump out of her car upon his command.”
Not his command, that was the officer to the left of the SUV and she WAS obligated to immediately get out of the car.
“Becca’s comments are irrelevant;”
Correct, yet you keep trying to pretend they are relevant
You keep trying to read the ICE officers mend and decide how he understood her remarks which he did not acknowledge or react to.
There were 4 ICE officers present. Each had a different role. A different officer was tasked with arresting Good.
He ordered her out of the car, when she did not comply he tried to remove her by force.
She tried to drive away with his hands in her car – that is a threat of serious bodily harm and justifies the use of deadly force.
The officer who shot Good, was documenting the scene and the arrest. He did not talk to anyone you have NOTHING to try to make claims about his “attritude” – beyond mind reading.
” NO reasonable person could even argue that Renee Good’s last words on earth could be construed as “passive aggressive””
Not relevant. But you keep bring up things that are not relevant.
Were Rene’s remark’s passive agressive ? contra your claim – that is not clear. It is also STILL irrelevant.
What is relevant is her actions.
“saying “I’m not mad at you, Dude” is as peaceful as conceivably possible;”
No it is typical left wing nut holier than thou nonsense – but it is not relevnant – really in anyway at all.
It is also an obvious lie.
You do not interfere with law enforcement if you are not “mad at them”. You do not protest law enforcement if you are “not mad at them”.
You are not “peaceful” if you are interfering with law enforcement.
Even in the rare instances where you are morally justified in resisting law enforcement – that is still “not peaceful” and “not mad at them”.
Again goods remarks are not relevant. but her actions prove she is lying to herself and others – just as YOU are lying to yourself and others.
“she was smiling;”
Eichman smiled as he watched Jews board trains.
“Becca pointed out–they had the tag number for the vehicle”
Again irrelevant.
The officer was not merely documenting the TAG, he was documenting the impending arrest.
“she anticipated that ICE would call on them later on”
Not relevant. With near certainty Renee was being arrested right then.
Generally LEOs do not let you go home after committing a crime before arresting you.
“Becca assured Ross that their address was correct.”
So if a rapist or mugger gives the police their address they are free to go ?
We do not know Why the goods traveled to Mineapolis.
But it is a FACT that they did.
They were carpet baggers with no visible means of support.
It is reasonable to conclude they are paid agitators.
But as Turley noted – that too is not relevant.
“Ross did NOT have a “fraction of a second””
Of course he did. There was less than a second between Good throwing the SUV into gear and
hitting the officer.
“When it was clear that Renee wasn’t going to get out of the car and was trying to drive away”
Which is called RESISTING ARREST.
Good was the subject of a “terry stop” investigative detention. – she was NOT “free to go”.
FIRST ICE came up to her with their lights on – SCOTUS has determined that alone means you are NOT “free to go”
That is important – because it means you are not free to go, it also means SOME of your procedural rights kick in.
Next – the officer commanded her to “Get out of the f#$King car”
“When are you under arrest?
You are considered to be under arrest when you reasonably believe that you are not free to leave. You do not have to be in handcuffs to be considered under arrest by law.”
The officer does NOT have to say “you are under arrest”
Good was being arrested.
“AFTER she had been commanded earlier to move her vehicle, which she was trying to do–why didn’t he just allow her to do”
Because she was subsequently commanded to get out of the F$%King car” – she was with near certainty being arrested.
“WHY does Ross seemingly have a habit of reaching into moving vehicles”
Clearly you have mis understood the videos – the Officer that shot Good is not the one that ordered her to “Get out of the F#$King car” and reached into her car.
LEOs are allowed to reach into cars to remove people who failed to obey their order.
“something that good police practice condemns?”
ROFL
So the police can never arrest someone who refuses to leave their car ?
Do you think before you spray nonsense ?
“This is the second time”
Wrong officer.
” he’s done this–the first time, he got drug by a fleeing suspect.”
Correct – the officer who shot Good was drug by a fleeing suspect.
“This time, he killed a peaceable woman in cold blood for no valid reason.”
No he killed a felon recklessly fleeing from arrest who was a danger to himself and others.
“I notice that Turley has nothing to say about Trump lying about what happened, lying about Ross being hospitalized or about ICE Barbie lying about the ICE vehicle being stuck in snow,”
Because ll of these are true.
“We DO believe our lying eyes and ears.”
We do – which is why this is a dead issue and only small numbers of left wing nuts are up in arms making false claims.
John Say,
Excellent take down of Gigi/Natasha!!
She said f### you at the end moron.
Beer For My Horses
Toby Keith
Wille, man come on the 6 o’clock news
Said somebody’s been shot, somebody’s been abused
Somebody blew up a building
Somebody stole a car
Somebody got away
Somebody didn’t get too far, yeah
They didn’t get too far
Grand pappy told my pappy, back in my day, son
A man had to answer for the wicked that he done
Take all the rope in Texas, find a tall oak tree
Round up all of them bad boys hang them high in the street
For all the people to see
We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds
We’ve got too much corruption, too much crime in the streets
It’s time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground
Send them all to their maker and he’ll settle them down
You can bet he’ll set them down ’cause
Justice is the one thing you should always find
You gotta saddle up your boys
You gotta draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles we’ll sing a victory tune
We’ll all meet back at the local saloon
We’ll raise up our glasses against evil forces
Singin’ whiskey for my men, beer for my horses
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has claimed that over 200 people shot and killed while protesting were trying to run them over with their cars.
Iran spokesman said they were paid protesters, and failed to comply with lawful orders
And they were paid by George Soros.
Iran says protestors all had lesbian wives.
NO lesbian wives exist in Iran.
VIOLATION OF PROFESSOR TURLEY’S CIVILITY RULE HERE.
INSOLENT IMPERTINENCE ABUSING VISITOR PRIVILEGES.
BAN FOR LIFE!!!
Who is the biggest villain? Democrat leaders in Minnesota. They have suspended the laws for disorderly conduct so that lunatics can criminally harass and obstruct federal agents at a level not allowed anywhere else in the Country. Not surprisingly, when one tolerates disorderly conduct on this scale, it isn’t long before reckless endangerment becomes commonplace and somebody gets killed. Back in saner days, we called it “broken windows theory.”
And since these attacks are directed specifically at federal agents, these Minnesota Democrats are also in violation of equal protections. They are also engaging in nullification of U.S. law. There’s a whole lot wrong happening here.
And why do Minnesota’s Democrats do this? Because they need a corrupt immigration system to stay in power in Minnesota. Because they are already guilty of arranging massive frauds and want the rest of the Country to stop noticing.
Minnesota has all but declared war. Trump needs to double down or watch every Democrat state in the Country follow Minnesota’s horrible example. This is becoming a real insurrection, and we need to nip it in the bud.
Diogenes,
The shooting was bad enough. I am waiting for someone to do something equally as stupid as what Good did, and trigger another 2020 like series of riots/burning down the city.
The disregard for law and order, immigration laws, even obeying lawful orders given by LEOs looks a lot more like an insurrection than Jan6th ever did.
And the attitude by Good and her wife, like this was some kind of game?
You should your own blog. You’re a genius.
“You should your own blog.” Is that English? What college did you go to?
Nope, not a genius. Just using logic, critical thinking, reason and common sense. Traits that continue to escape you.
Upstate, it was a stupid game, and they got a stupid prize in the Darwin category. Good created a situation that led to her reckless endangerment of a federal agent and she got shot. Sad, unfortunate, and Democrat leaders are as guilty as anybody. The list of crimes is piling up for Walz and Frey.
The Feds need to investigate Walz and Frey and give them the Jefferson Davis treatment. They need to be made an example of.
USF
I don’t think they will try another burn riot with Trump. He will smoke them in the steets if they try that burn crap again. I think people have had enough of this nonsense, there’s an arny of Kyle Rittenhouse out there.
Dio, true. Consider the US has lost territory to these people and military is sent in to maintain the integrity of the USA. The problem is their endeavor is to kill and destroy. Beat it back to subsistence farming is their plan.
Some pay lip service to the cause such as the coaches and owners NBA wanting to avoid trouble. Let’s truly see what happens when women run the place. Women of various groups have various IQs, anthropology.
In a world where n9thing is good, nothing is good. I’m not voting for Vance when it’s obvious he drags around the real head Usha. Not electing her.
🌲
From the Minneapolis Fraternal Order of police.
“W]hile Federal law enforcement has been doing their job in Minnesota, political and community leaders have condemned and vilified them. The hateful and anti-law enforcement rhetoric by Mayor Frey and other politicians have made their jobs and those of local and state law enforcement more difficult and dangerous. The job of law enforcement is difficult and dangerous enough without the agitation by leaders in our state and communities.”
The leftist politicians are happy to get the Somali scandal off the front page. They couldn’t give a rats behind about this woman. All over X black people are saying that she pulled a stupid move.
They are saying that if she really cared about her kids she would have thought about them before she did what she did. True civil disobedience accepts the consequences of your actions not running over someone in an attempt to get away. Martin Luther King was a hero but this woman was just a boisterous coward who really only cared about herself.
“All over X black people are saying…” Black people only huh?
Who is morally responsible for the killing? That is an easy question to answer: the people who encouraged thousands of people to cross our Southern border without official approval.
If you state so, then, you are. Morally speaking of course. Have you explored the metaphysical aspect?
Mayorkas is enjoying himself.
Ok, this is what I think happened. One officer was at the door of the car pulling on the handle trying open the door to arrest them for blocking traffic and whatever else might be applicable. The second officer was standing in front of the car with his pistol drawn. Meanwhile, her partner screaming her to drive! drive! in an effort to flee and avoid arrest. So, she floored the accelerator in a panic with the car lurching toward the officer in front of the car. He raised his pistol and shot her in an effort to avoid being run over. She really did not intend to run over him, but the result was just the same. Admit it. If you had been the officer, you would have shot her as well.
The person who was responsible for what happened was her partner. She was the one who attempted to get Good to flee to avoid arrest. If she had kept her mouth shut, I bet she would still be alive today.
I don’t think he drew his pistol until she lurched towards him.
Shipwrecked Crew (William Shipley) has a detailed analysis of the video and the law that is worth reading on Red State.
He drew his pistol while he was still using his cell phone. He intended to kill her because she was not complying with his commands and he resented what Becca said to him.
In her wails of shock and grief, Becca Good exclaimed “I just got my wife killed”.
But is that fact being reported? No, which perfectly illustrates JT’s theme of the day.
Does her wife need attention? She wants to be accounted for as present with the warrior but she rightly said, she did it. These are very dangerous morons. George Floyd died 1 mile away. SBA beat feet. Burn Minneapolis down and not a dollar from feds to rebuild as they pay back the fraud.
Just look what they’ve done is enough.
A confession…
Ano
officer was standing in front of the car with his pistol drawn.
__________________________
Wrong. Watch the video He pulls his gun when she hit the gas, tire were spinning and the lurched fwd.
Dustoff knows, he was there.
“You should your own blog.” Is that English? What college did you go to?
Nope, not a genius. Just using logic, critical thinking, reason and common sense. Traits that continue to escape you.
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/12/the-ice-elephant-why-the-law-requires-all-the-facts/comment-page-2/#comment-2594127
Try watching the video fool.
The car was not “floored”. The wheels were turned AWAY from Ross. Police officers are trained not to stand in front of a suspect’s car—and, it’s never appropriate to shoot through the driver’s side window, especially in a residential area. There was a dog in the car, too. If you shoot the driver of a moving vehicle, you create an unreasonable risk of danger to the public–a moving vehicle with a disabled driver.
You don’t know that Renee was trying to “flee to avoid arrest”–she may well have been complying with the first command to move her vehicle. AND, law enforcement cannot shoot at a fleeing suspect who does not have any weapon and who is not acting aggressively. She was not acting aggressively–in fact, she was behaving as peaceably as possible. He shot her because of anger and rage–not out of any need for self-protection. He didn’t like Becca’s “big boy” comment or the fact that neither Becca nor Renee was intimidated by him, nor were they immediately complying with his commands. Someone, likely Ross, called Renee a “f….ing b..ch” while she was dying–which proves he was motivated by rage. That slur, along with his extensive profanity, and the fact that he shot through the side window after the vehicle couldn’t have struck him proves motive. Neither Renee nor Becca used profanity or angry words. Becca was defiant–not aggressive, and she is not responsible for Ross killing Renee. Renee could have been arrested later on–Becca Good told Ross that their address from their license plate was accurate. If I had been the officer, I would have done what reasonable police officers are trained to do when someone in a vehicle is not getting out–get the plate number and radio ahead to have them picked up. That’s what the law requires.
And the charge and the mission of police officers universally is to let the bad guys get away.
(SARC/ON for those of you in Rio Linda).
Your arguments are not arguments; they are pure incoherent rubbish.
Renee was NOT a “bad guy”–Ross was. She didn’t violate any federal laws.
While the good professor correctly advises “to ignore conclusions reached blindly by either side,” -the “sides” are not separated by different but reasonable conclusions drawn from video image interpretations, -they appear instead to be separated/divided by political preference.
Notwithstanding, this entire incident recalls a similarly case last year in which a Columbus OH officer was acquitted. (Halfway down in the media write-up, there is a link to the actual police camera video (paragraph starts with, “Jurors were shown the body cam video..”) Watch the video.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-acquitted-death-takiya-young-pregnant-black-mother-accused-sho-rcna245149
In the Ohio case, the officer intentionally positioned himself directly in front of the vehicle; whereas in the Minneapolis case, the officer was standing stationary away from and slightly off to the side of the vehicle, which then turned toward him. In both cases, the wrongs committed by the vehicle drivers were likely misdemeanors: one for shoplifting “booze,” the other for disregarding orders to exit the vehicle.
Coming full circle from my first sentence above, it appears to me that in today’s environment of “rage,” jurors may be more likely to decide a case by considering their political feelings than by considering “all angles” of the actual incident.
(yes, the shooting officer does appear to be passing around the front of Good’s car as she is putting it in reverse….)
Are you certain they are one and the same?
NO, Renee’s vehicle did NOT “turn toward him”–she steered AWAY from him. That cannot be disputed. He was enraged–throwing f bombs right and left. He never identified himself as a police officer or said “you are under arrest”. She was peaceable–said she wasn’t mad at him. He called her an “f….ing b..ch” after he killed her. That proves that rage and ego were the motives here, along with turning her vehicle away from him and trying to comply with the prior command to move her vehicle. Facts are facts. Ross is dangerous and doesn’t belong in law enforcement.
You don’t taunt and egg-on the person with a gun is their hand.
When someone (anyone) is pointing a Gun at you, and you are unarmed, common sense dictates you stand down.
Becca Good escalated the circumstances by taunting and egging-on the officers, she was cognoscente of what she was doing, in addition when she boarded the Vehicle she commanded her wife to move/get out of there. The Wife obeyed and got killed for it. Becca Good will live with the consequences of her actions of that day, and someday Renee Good’s Children are going to call her out on that.
Lesson Learned: You Don’t Taunt and Egg-on the person with a gun is their hand, and You Don’t Take a Knife (SUV) to a Gun Fight.
Police officers cannot kill someone who is “egging them on”, and Renee was NOT “egging on” anyone–she was smiling and trying to move her vehicle as she had been previously commanded to do. The one who should “stand down” is the police officer. Becca Good did nothing wrong–it’s not a capital offense to indicate that someone is not intimidated by a police officer–a comment by Becca does not justify Ross shooting Renee.. Police officers are NOT supposed to throw f-bombs or call women “b..tch”, either. Lesson learned: ICE is out of control–they aren’t wanted–the American public is fed up with them and want them gone. ICE is the one that instigates trouble and Trump and ICE Barbie are liars.
MY favorite shooting is The Good The Bad and the Ugly ending. 21 million views.
Some trivia. This was filmed in Spain. The cemetery was an elaborate set, designed by Carlo Simi and built specifically for the film in 1966 by several hundred soldiers from the Spanish Army. It featured over 5,000 graves arranged in a circular design.
The arena? Bullfighting? Th9se were good films. They made Eastwood.
Professor,
I note your repeated condemnation of Mayor Frey and his rush to conclude that agent Ross was a “murderer.” But why not mention what prompted Frey’s comments? They were in direct response to Noem’s immediate declaration that Good was a “domestic terrorist” before she knew any real details of the incident or Trump’s Truth Social post that Ross was “run over” and injured to the extent he required hospitalization – which was clearly a lie. Yet again, you bemoan the “Age of Rage” but then throw another log on the fire of anger by not telling the whole story – and then, honestly, you warm your hands by the fire in plugging your book of the same title. I could ask why you insist on gas-lighting your readers, but the answer is obvious. Because your readers wouldn’t tolerate you being objective, and you wouldn’t have a book to shill.
Armchair Professor Anonymous: at best your points (like Frey’s) are extremely slanted; at worst, they join in Frey’s ill-mannered rhetorical firebombing that coerces people to act insanely—no “Public Servant” should speak in such foul manner as Frey, not for any reason. The job of a public servant is to uphold law and model civility.
Here are some things to consider, IF you are capable of reasoning:
* You bemoan,”Noem’s immediate declaration that Good was a “domestic terrorist” before she knew any real details of the incident…”
As a government official, Noem knew more at the beginning of the incident than you do, days later. She used a term you don’t like because it reveals the organized LARPing going on and its propensity to force escalation insurrection and harm. Your comrades WANT this kind of event and press, and for deeper and worse reasons than the protection of unchecked immigration.
* “Trump’s Truth Social post that Ross was “run over” and injured to the extent he required hospitalization – which was clearly a lie.”
The exaggerations in-point and outright lying (also from your ideological comrades) are going on, endlessly, in the current culture. In other words, there’s, a strong psychosis going on, and your job as a civilized neighbor is to help tamp it down, diffuse it, not praise loose cannons like Frey, in the further agitation of “rage” and violent stupidity.
In service of morality and real justice, why don’t you take Truley’s analyses as valid counterpoints, not as “gas lighting,” and learn how to object without the use of verbal violence, as well as encouraging the physical instigation of violence. That would go a long way to healing these United States, in addition to curbing the shock-mistakes of shooting people in the chaos of a violent moment—you all encourage this, daily. Stop it.
This comment is on target. It is entirely appropriate to criticize the comments of the Mayor and others who jumped to conclusions about what happened. But far worse is the fact that senior officials of the federal government also jumped to conclusions, thereby undermining the credibility of any investigation undertaken by their subordinates. The President, the Vice President and Secretary Noem have done far more to undermine the rule of law than the loonies who immediately condemned the ICE agent as a murderer.
Respectfully, -not that I agree with Noem–I think she should have used a qualifier in the way that Turley does–i.e., “it appears that this may have been an act of domestic terrorism…”
But YOUR comment fails to appreciate that Noem was likely referring to knowledge of Renee Good’s EARLIER following
ICE around and harassing them; Noem’s statement was hours after the incident, and DHS/ICE knew who Good was from prior encounters.
AS always, I call out the media’s role in this.
Yesterday I watched NBC Kristen Welker challenge Tom Homan on calling it terrorism, yet she did NOT-even for a minute- challenge Jacob Frey for calling it a “murder.”
Nor did MSM stop with their relentless coverage of Frey, Dan Goldman, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Tim Walz, Ilhan Omar and others– all calling it “murder,” without any challenge or pushback.
ALL day yesterday, mainstream media interviewed protesters declaring “Murder.” I did not see a SINGLE interview of a counter protester, or even a bystander, voicing a different opinion, as we see here on this platform provided by Professor Turley.
Lin,
Thank you for taking the time to actually watch MSM yesterday and their biased and slanted coverage. Seems MSM is helping the DNC to deflect from their failures of things like the massive fraud committed in MN.
Really, you are as sharp as a pin man.
“You should your own blog.” Is that English? What college did you go to?
Nope, not a genius. Just using logic, critical thinking, reason and common sense. Traits that continue to escape you.
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/12/the-ice-elephant-why-the-law-requires-all-the-facts/comment-page-2/#comment-2594127
What I find really rich about Frey demanding the federal government cooperate with him on his politically hinged investigation is that the state government refuses to work with the federal government to turn over criminal illegal aliens. In other words, we won’t work with you to enforce the law, but we demand that you work with us to enforce the law. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Performative rage. Gets votes!
And sells copies of Turley’s book.
We have plenty of facts. It was murder.
The only facts that have is that you are in fact an idiot.
Think you meant village idiot.
Let me ask you this: Someone pulls a gun, shoots at you, and it just grazes you; if you then return fire and kill them, is that murder?
Because that is what happened here. She gunned the engine of an SUV at someone. Due to the ice on the ground, it didn’t accelerate as fast as it could have, so it only winged that person. If that ice hadn’t been on the ground and the SUV had full traction, that person would have been sent flying.
Your analogy is flawed. In this case, Good fired the shot, grazed the officer and then kept shooting as she did not stop the vehicle when it struck the officer.
Clearly hit and run with reckless disregard for human life.
Who is we? You /they/them and your schizophrenic comrades in arms?
umm no it wasnt retard
The Left’s brainwashed idiot footsoldiers are not done yet. It will get worse before it gets better. Those buying these astroturf protests need to be stopped before their idiocy turns our streets truly bloody.
Part of my vote for Trump was mass deportations. He needs to up the rate 10x.
Make employers of illegals hurt
Ban remittances by illegals
E-verify for employment
Zero benefits for illegals
Zero $ for states obstructing ICE
Arrest the idiots obstructing LEOs
ID illegals through tax evasion
Trace and disrupt those paying protestors
It was very cruel to tell all those aliens that it was OK to come here illegally. It is cruel to American Citizens to allow them to stay.
Yes, there will be some economic dislocations caused by deporting 30-40 million illegal aliens but like a viral fever we will get past it.
Trades Jobs jobs jobs …
“The Left’s brainwashed idiot footsoldiers are not done yet.” Indeed, Oldfish. Considering the Goods rap sheet, including previous arrests for assaults on LEOs, there’s an entitlement mentality among the professional riff-raff class. They’re determined to continue poking the bear. They will continue do so at their own peril and the lives of their soon-to-be orphaned children.
The only fact that matters is that she stepped on the accelerator instead of complying with the LEO’s orders to get out of the vehicle.
Agreed on the accelerator.
The lack of self-awareness of these Leftists is incredible. Their tantrums prevent them from even considering how stupid it is to harass and impede law enforcement.
Rounding up and deporting illegal aliens is lawful and is not a cause for revolution, yet they behave as if they are protecting the nation.
Hit and run
Yes, it was a hit and run. Forensics should give some info. The car kept going.
Can Mayor Frey tell us what he would have recommended the officer should have done if the car was accelerating toward him and the officer thought he would have been unable to evade it? Does the Mayor think the officer should have just stood there and taken the hit?
Now include the front tire gaining speed after it initially slipt on ice and you have more force.
This tactic of getting in front of a vehicle to justify shooting someone goes as far back at 2014.
“WASHINGTON — Border Patrol agents have deliberately stepped in the path of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers and have fired in frustration at people throwing rocks from the Mexican side of the border, according to an independent review of 67 cases that resulted in 19 deaths.”
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-killings-20140227-story.html#:~:text=An%20independent%20report%20criticizes%20Border,report%20from%20coming%20to%20light.
These kinds of tactics have been used to poorly justify the use of deadly force. When officers had plenty of opportunity to avoid the danger and threat of life. Many chose to shoot out of frustration and that is more likely why Ross chose to shoot Good rather than do the reasonable thing and stay away from the front of the vehicle which is what he is supposed to do.
All Good had to do was put the car in park and exit the vehicle as instructed by the LEO. She is to blame, no one else.
Good had no reason to exit the vehicle. It was not a traffic stop it was not an arrest. She was not told she was under arrest and she was not committing any traffic violation.
Two cars were able to get past her without any trouble and she was waving the ICE truck to get past her. Instead they chose to stop and confront her. All they had to to do is drive past her and continue on their merry way.
george
Good had no reason to exit the vehicle.
____________________________________
You liar. The officer as he walked up to her car , was saying she was under arrest. ( you can hear it on the video)
Dustoff, ICE cannot do traffic stops or anything related to traffic violations. She did nothing wrong. She was positioned well off to the side allowing any vehicle to pass her. Two cars passed her and she was waving the ICE truck to get past her. They chose to stop and get out and confront her. She was not impeding or obstructing them at all. Any arrest attempt would have been unlawful and therefore she had no reason to follow their commands. ICE cannot do traffic stops for any reason other than execution of a warrant.
Telling her to get out of the car was an unlawful command. What was she doing wrong?
Ross made the mistake of getting in front of her car during a tense confrontation. He was already going to pull his gun on her bedside he got around the car. You can tell he was shooting out of anger, not fear for his life.
“ICE cannot do traffic stops or anything related to traffic violations.”
Correct – this was not a traffic stop – it was an arrest for obstructing law enforcement.
“She did nothing wrong.”
False and not relevant.
You can argue that at trial.
Regardless she was likely being arrested for multiple acts of obstruction throughout the day.
There is video of her with her car accross the road obstructing traffic and blaring her horn.
“Telling her to get out of the car was an unlawful command. What was she doing wrong?”
False and irrelevant.
You are free to debate the lawfulness of an LEO order with the officer.
It is highly unlikely they care or are going to listen., and generally it is a very bad idea.
You are required to comply REGARDLESS. You get to argue the order is unlawful at your hearing.
“Ross made the mistake of getting in front of her car during a tense confrontation.”
It was Tense because Good was being arrested.
John Say,
“ ICE cannot do traffic stops or anything related to traffic violations.”
Correct – this was not a traffic stop – it was an arrest for obstructing law enforcement.”
She was not obstructing law enforcement. She was blocking traffic that was NOT law enforcement. She as not specifically blocking ICE from moving. Details are important.
She was not being arrested for obstruction. She was being subjected to a retaliatory arrest which is unlawful. When she was approached she was not obstructing anyone including ICE. There was no reason to arrest or detain her.
“ She did nothing wrong.”
False and not relevant.
You can argue that at trial.
Regardless she was likely being arrested for multiple acts of obstruction throughout the day.
There is video of her with her car accross the road obstructing traffic and blaring her horn”
Wrong again John. You seem to be wrong in nearly everything today.
She did nothing wrong. You can argue it at trial? What trial? There isn’t going to be a trial. She’s dead. “Likely being arrested” seems like you’re doubtful of your own claim. Video of her blocking traffic and blaring her horn is not obstruction of justice. It’s a traffic violation that ICE has no authority to arrest her for. This is where you keep going wrong.
“ Telling her to get out of the car was an unlawful command. What was she doing wrong?”
False and irrelevant.
You are free to debate the lawfulness of an LEO order with the officer.
It is highly unlikely they care or are going to listen., and generally it is a very bad idea.
You are required to comply REGARDLESS. You get to argue the order is unlawful at your hearing.“
Again, wrong. She was not required to comply. The stop was unlawful and the so was the order to get out of the car. She was not stopped for an immigration check. She was being confronted as a retaliatory measure. You are not required to comply if the order or arrest is unlawful. ICE was stopping her because they were annoyed with her. That is not a lawful stop or arrest.
“ Ross made the mistake of getting in front of her car during a tense confrontation.”
It was Tense because Good was being arrested.”
Wrong again, it was tense because multiple ICE officers poured out of the truck and attempted to surround her car and were demanding she get out. Ross was out of her field of view because she was focused on the officer trying to open her door. She never saw Ross until the last second before he shot her. She was not being arrested. Nobody said she was under arrest or that she was being arrested. They only ordered her out of the car. That is not an arrest order.
John, you don’t seem to understand how the law works or why details matter. To say she was obstructing law enforce by is pure nonsense when it’s clear ICE could have driven right past her as two other cars did. Her blocking traffic earlier is not law enforcement obstruction because the cars that were temporarily blocked were NOT ICE. That is the distinction that you keep leaving out. If she was blocking ICE itself earlier she would have been arrested much earlier. They didn’t want to get past her because she had been following them before and they did not like that. Even though it’s perfectly legal. She was waving them to pass her and they chose to stop and confront her instead. She was not breaking the law at the moment and she was free to leave at any moment because they could not detain her for just sitting there. She did nothing wrong.
No, he was yelling – you’re being a pest.
What did George Floyd say? I took the drugs? How did they translate that?
“Good had no reason to exit the vehicle.”
She was ordered out of the vehicle by an LEO – SCOTUS has ruled on this – You MUST exit your car iff ordered.
” It was not a traffic stop”
Correct – she was in violation of a federal criminal statute – though every state has an equivalent.
She was not facing a summary carge she was atleast facing a criminal misdemeanor, andmore likely a feolony
“it was not an arrest.”
It was – but that is irrelevant – she was obligated to follow the order of the officer.
She did not – add another felony.
“She was not told she was under arrest”
She does not need to be. She was ordered out of the car, she was required to comply
Even if ICE had no intention of arresting her – with near certainty they did,
she still was obligated to follow the order.
“she was not committing any traffic violation.”
Correct – she was obstructing Law Enforcement – that is not a traffic violation it is a crime.
“Two cars were able to get past her without any trouble and she was waving the ICE truck to get past her.”
She was facing arrest for her actions through the course of the day – including blocking the road several times previously – including just a few minutes before the video starts.
There is separate video of her blocking the road with her horn blaring.
If you have video and her horn is not blaring – you have the wrong video.
“Instead they chose to stop and confront her.”
False and irrelevant.
At the very least she was undergoing a “terry Stop”
“a brief, temporary involuntary detention of a person suspected of being involved in criminal activity for the purpose of investigating the potential criminal violation.”
During a terry stop you are NOT “free to go” – you are obligated to obey all orders of LEOs even those you beleive to be illegal.
If you beleive an LEO has issued an illegal order – you obey and fight it out later with lawyers.
“All they had to to do is drive past her and continue on their merry way.”
LEOs can avoid having to shoot bank robbers, and rapists by just driving past too.
BTW the standard for Obstructing law enforcement – ass well as the standard for the traffic violation of blocking a road, is NOT
No one can get passed. It is intentionally making it difficult to pass.
Even the most libertrian people in the world do not beleive you are free to obstruct others except on your own property.
John Say,
If you watch this video, you can see she is clearly blocking traffic. The dark blue Jeep tries to pull around the line of cars, approaches Good blocking traffic, the Jeep stops, then goes in reverse to find a different route. It is only then she moves her vehicle to allow others to pass. By then, ICE’s truck approaches, lights and sirens going. They get out and approach her, order her out of the vehicle. She then puts the vehicle in reverse, then in drive and accelerates and hits the ICE officer. She failed to follow lawful orders and the moment she put the vehicle in drive, she turned the vehicle into a deadly weapon. Also of note, the ICE agent could not see what direction the wheels were facing from the front.
Her wife telling her to, “Drive! Drive! Drive!” Did not help.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/15763903/renee-good-blocks-ice-agents-fatal-minneapolis-shooting/
Upstatefarmer,
“ Good blocking traffic, the Jeep stops, then goes in reverse to find a different route. It is only then she moves her vehicle to allow others to pass. By then, ICE’s truck approaches, lights and sirens going”
So? The Jeep is clearly NOT ICE. Here’s the big clue for you, she moved her vehicle to let others to pass. The ICE truck could have passed just as easily as the other two. She was not blocking their path or any other traffic. There was no reason to stop to confront her. Because the act of moving to let traffic through is no longer deemed “blocking traffic” or ICE.
Furthermore, blocking traffic is a traffic violation that ICE is not authorized to stop people for. That is still the job of the Minneapolis police. Not ICE. Nice try.
John Say,
“ Good had no reason to exit the vehicle.”
She was ordered out of the vehicle by an LEO – SCOTUS has ruled on this – You MUST exit your car iff ordered.”
If the order IS lawful. ICE is not a police officer or a traffic cop. ICE had to have probable cause to arrest her. They had none. You must exit your car IF IT’S A LAWFUL STOP. ICE had no authority to order her to get out of the car.
“ It was not a traffic stop”
Correct – she was in violation of a federal criminal statute – though every state has an equivalent.
She was not facing a summary carge she was atleast facing a criminal misdemeanor, andmore likely a feolony”
What crime did she commit John? What was she in violation of? You didn’t cite anything specific to what she was doing wrong. It couldn’t have been obstruction because two cars already went past her without any issue and she was already waving them to get past her. So what did she do wrong?
“ it was not an arrest.”
It was – but that is irrelevant – she was obligated to follow the order of the officer.
She did not – add another felony.”
She was not obligated to follow an unlawful order. What was she being detained for? ICE is not the police and they don’t have any authority to stop people without probable cause, especially on a public road.
“ she was not committing any traffic violation.”
Correct – she was obstructing Law Enforcement – that is not a traffic violation it is a crime.”
How was she obstructing law enforcement John? Two vehicles went past her without issues and ICE had plenty of opportunity to do the same. She was even waving them to get past her. So where was the obstruction? ICE chose to stop to confront her. The video shows they had plenty of room to get past her and she was not blocking their way out. She wasn’t impeding their duty either. They had absolutely no reason to stop and confront her.
“ Two cars were able to get past her without any trouble and she was waving the ICE truck to get past her.”
She was facing arrest for her actions through the course of the day – including blocking the road several times previously – including just a few minutes before the video starts.
There is separate video of her blocking the road with her horn blaring.
If you have video and her horn is not blaring – you have the wrong video.”
It’s completely irrelevant. She was not blocking the road when they were leaving. She moved out of the way and two cars went by her. Legally they couldn’t arrest her once she moved out of the way. The law is pretty clear about that. ICE was always free to leave and she gave them a perfectly good way out just before she got killed.
There is no evidence that she was facing arrest before. If she was she would have been apprehended long before that moment. Nobody stated she was under arrest. She was free to leave at any time and she was not obligated to get out of her car because they wanted to arrest her later when they could have earlier. She got out of the way and let ICE be on their way. They chose to stop and confront her instead of just leaving and moving on to another operation.
“ Instead they chose to stop and confront her.”
False and irrelevant.
At the very least she was undergoing a “terry Stop”
“a brief, temporary involuntary detention of a person suspected of being involved in criminal activity for the purpose of investigating the potential criminal violation.”
A Terry stop requires probable cause and they did not have that. She was not committing a crime when she was letting them by. When they approached her she was not blocking them or obstructing their way out. There was no probable cause that she was committing a crime.
“ All they had to to do is drive past her and continue on their merry way.”
LEOs can avoid having to shoot bank robbers, and rapists by just driving past too.
BTW the standard for Obstructing law enforcement – ass well as the standard for the traffic violation of blocking a road, is NOT
No one can get passed. It is intentionally making it difficult to pass.”
Non-sequitur. The standard for obstructing law enforcement blocking the road means blocking the road. It wasn’t difficult for two cars just before the ICE truck came up. They had plenty of room to pass. They chose to confront and escalate because they were annoyed and frustrated by her actions none of which were a crime at the moment.
There as absolutely no probable cause to stop and confront her when they had the ability to just drive by and leave. Ross made stupid mistake of getting in front of her car while she was trying to leave. She had no obligation to get out of the car or stay there. The act of leaving should have been enough to end the confrontation, but ICE chose to escalate and find an excuse to arrest her because they wanted to punish her.
“Good had no reason to exit the vehicle.”
She was ordered to by an LEO
“When are you under arrest?
You are considered to be under arrest when you reasonably believe that you are not free to leave. You do not have to be in handcuffs to be considered under arrest by law.”
“ When are you under arrest?
You are considered to be under arrest when you reasonably believe that you are not free to leave. You do not have to be in handcuffs to be considered under arrest by law.”
She was under no impression that she was not free to leave. Telling her to get out of the car is NOT an arrest. She was not told she was under arrest either. She was under no obligation to talk to or interact with the ICE officer.
“ You do not have to be in handcuffs to be considered under arrest by law.”
Wrong. You have to be under a LEO’s physical control to be considered under arrest. None of the ICE officers were in physical control of the situation or Good. She can be detained without being in handcuffs. Once you are under arrest you ARE in handcuffs. You are under arrest when the LEO tells you and cites the charges. Or when you are detained beyond a reasonable time limit.
None of that applies to Good.
“Good had no reason to exit the vehicle.”
She was ordered to by an LEO”
Again in order for the order to be lawful the arrest or detainment must be lawful. She was not violating traffic laws or obstructing ICE. Blocking traffic is a traffic violation not obstruction of justice.
If this is so widely known then please explain why so many protesters put themselves in a situation where they are likely be shot. Are these protesters really that stupid?
Yes, yes they are…
2014? So you mean Obama planned Good’s death? No two ways about it. Premeditated.
“This tactic of getting in front of a vehicle to justify shooting someone goes as far back at 2014. ”
But that is not what happened in this case. The officer’s cell phone recording show him in the process of making a full 360 of the car in order to collect evidence. He had reached the front of the car and was continuing to circle around when the woman backed up, turn the wheels towards him, then gunned the engine. The officer didn’t jump in front of the car or anything like that at all.
You can claim all sorts of things that didn’t happen here, so it is irrelevant.
(Also, btw, a thrown rock is a deadly weapon. Just this past weekend, a guy throwing a rock fractured a young girl’s skull: https://abc7ny.com/post/teaneck-rock-thrown-bus-police-seek-suspect-8-year-old-girl-injured-nj/18378048/ )
It doesn’t matter if he was taking video of the car a full 360. He still was not supposed to get in front of it. If he did what you claim he did he already had her license plate number. He had everything he needed to get a warrant and arrest her later.
She turned away from him and bumped him when he didn’t get out of the way fast enough. He was already going to pull his gun on her when he witched hands when he was holding his cell phone.
BTW throwing rocks is not a deadly threat when you can get away from it. Plus shooting someone 8 times in the back through a fence is justified?
It doesn’t matter if he was taking video of the car a full 360. He still was not supposed to get in front of it.
While you want to lie in order to ignore all the existing case law (despite presenting yourself as a Constitutional expert almost daily)… where is your opinion codified in either state or federal law? Or case law, perhaps?
Where do you find his legal duty to avoid being in front of her vehicle? Karl Marx’s version of American law?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm”
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this: (1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and (2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also, (3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
354 days left in 2026 for daily cringe-worthy personal failure from X.
X is a national treasure, just like dustoff. We need to support them. X uses fool/idiot adjectives, Dustoff uses stupid/stupider adjectives.
Lets campaign so that Turley starts a Hall of Stupid.
“You should your own blog.” Is that English? What college did you go to?
Nope, not a genius. Just using logic, critical thinking, reason and common sense. Traits that continue to escape you.
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/12/the-ice-elephant-why-the-law-requires-all-the-facts/comment-page-2/#comment-2594127
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20260108/118805/HMKP-119-JU00-20260108-SD003.pdf
It’s standard policy on almost every police department including federal law enforcement.
So you cite some how doc produced AFTER Good was shot rather than actual policy ?
NO this is not standard policy.
The written policy is available.
It is specific to moving vehicles.
It is also obvious that what you cite above is just a vague opinion – not actual policy.
As an example your cite does not distinguish between moving, stopped, engine off, occupied or unoccupied.
Actual policies cover all of that.
Finally – compliance with policy is proof of innocence – failure to comply is NOT proof of guilt
John Say,
“ So you cite some how doc produced AFTER Good was shot rather than actual policy ?”
No, it’s policy as stated by Homeland security spokesperson. It IS standard policy in nearly every police department. Again, whether the vehicle is moving or not no officer is supposed to stand in front of it in such situations.
“ It is also obvious that what you cite above is just a vague opinion – not actual policy.”
Nope, not a vague opinion. They are mentioning what the policy says.
“ As an example your cite does not distinguish between moving, stopped, engine off, occupied or unoccupied.
Actual policies cover all of that.”
You don’t cite any actual policy and you definitely can’t claim it says what you claim it says because you’re making it up as you go along. Why don’t YOU cite the policy if you’re so sure it mentions what you claim?
John, your argument keeps falling apart every time you try to refute the facts.
Why don’t YOU cite the policy and prove me wrong.
” He still was not supposed to get in front of it.”
You are lying.
The alleged policy you cite is about moving vehcles and has a dozen exceptions including a “where the judgement of the officer deems it warranted one”
regardless that policy does not apply and if it did – it was met.
” He had everything he needed to get a warrant and arrest her later.”
Requirements to arrest
“The officer has personally observed the crime.
If an officer witnesses a crime, he/she has legal authority to arrest the perpetrator.”
“She turned away from him and bumped him when he didn’t get out of the way fast enough.”
That is called agrevated assault – it is also not what happened – she turned towards him,. hit him he shot and she turned away.
This is clear if you frame by frame the video from behind.
“He was already going to pull his gun on her when he witched hands when he was holding his cell phone.”
Mind reading and irrelevant. She was resisting arrest – he was free to pull his gun.
There are an enormous number of circumstances in which an officer can draw his gun.
There are more limits on when an officer can point his gun at a suspect.
An officer may point a gun at a suspect (as opposed to holding it at low ready) when the suspect resists arrest, attempts to flee or is a threat to the officer or others. ALL of these were met. There are other instances – these are not applicable.
“BTW throwing rocks is not a deadly threat when you can get away from it. Plus shooting someone 8 times in the back through a fence is justified?”
Cite ? And what has this to do with the Good case.
John Say,
“ He still was not supposed to get in front of it.”
You are lying.
The alleged policy you cite is about moving vehcles and has a dozen exceptions including a “where the judgement of the officer deems it warranted one”
regardless that policy does not apply and if it did – it was met.”
Apparently you don’t know how to read.
“ ICE officers are trained to never approach a vehicle from the front and instead to approach in a
“tactical L” 90-degree angle to prevent injury or cross-fire, a senior Department of Homeland
Security official told NBC News.
Officers are also instructed not to shoot at a moving vehicle and only to use force if there is an
immediate risk of serious injury or death, the official said.
ICE officers are also instructed that firing at a vehicle will not make it stop moving in the direction
of the officer.”
Nothing in the policy requires the vehicle be moving or stationary when an officer is not supposed to get in front of it. The policy does apply and it’s DHS, CBP, ICE.
“ The officer has personally observed the crime.
If an officer witnesses a crime, he/she has legal authority to arrest the perpetrator.”
What was the crime? Blocking traffic is a traffic violation. ICE cannot arrest her or detain her for blocking traffic. She did not block ICE specifically and she did move to allow traffic to move past including several cars and ICE had every opportunity to drive by as well.
Even if an ICE officer saw her blocking traffic he had no authority to detain or arrest her for the offense since it is a traffic violation.
“ She turned away from him and bumped him when he didn’t get out of the way fast enough.”
That is called agrevated assault – it is also not what happened – she turned towards him,. hit him he shot and she turned away.
This is clear if you frame by frame the video from behind.”
You must clearly be blind. She bumped him when he did not get away fast enough. She steered away from him and once she got shot the car did not continue straight it veered in the direction she turned the wheel which was away from the officers.
Ross intentionally got in front of the car when he was not supposed to according to policy. He violated that policy and broke the law the second and third time he shot her when he was clear of the vehicle.
He was already going to pull his gun on her when he witched hands when he was holding his cell phone.”
Mind reading and irrelevant. She was resisting arrest – he was free to pull his gun.“
No mind reading required. Video shows he switched hands with his phone to grab his firearm before she moved. He was free to pull his gun, but not to fire. He should have just aimed his gun and wait until she saw it. It is very likely she never saw the officer or the gun when her attention was on the officer trying to open the door. That shows it was unintentional and she had no idea Ross was even there.
“ She was resisting arrest – he was free to pull his gun.”
She was not under arrest. Nobody said she was. Telling her to get out of the car is not a statement of arrest. She was not committing crime and she was in the process of leaving. ICE had no authority to arrest her. Blocking traffic is a traffic violation. Not obstruction of justice.
Throwing a rock into a moving vehicle is the same as shooting into an occupied vehicle. Its a physics momentum thing that I am sure yo would not be able to understand.
X says: “This tactic of getting in front of a vehicle to justify shooting someone goes as far back at 2014..”
Yup, as in “I so desperately want to shoot this person that I am going to stand directly in front of their vehicle in hopes that when they stomp on the gas, I can shoot them while not getting run over”!!!!
Straight out of Saul Alinsky’s 1960 communist operations manual.
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm”
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site.
This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
354 days left in 2026 for daily cringe-worthy personal failure from X.
Why are we to beleive the same media that told us that CBP agents were whipping illegal immigrants with horsewhips ?
You really do not understand how little credibility the media has.
“This tactic of getting in front of a vehicle to justify shooting someone goes as far back at 2014.”
First there is no policy baring standing in front of a vehicle.
There is a policy about stepping in front of a fleeing vehcile, and that police has MYRIADS of exceptions – including where there is a threat of harm to others. In this instance there was a clear threat to the ICE agent trying to forceably remove Good from her car.
The moment she dropped the car into gear she was forceably resisting arrest and fleeing.
As well as recklessly endangeroing multiple ICE agents.
Regardless even a moron should be able to understand that there will be no Law Enforcement policy that says “any time a criminal does X – let them go” otherwise it would NEVER be possible to arrest someone.
That said Absolutely ICE and other LEOs may place themselves in front of a stopped vehicle – possibly with Gun Drawn to convey the clear message “YOU ARE UNDER ARREST”. “YOU ARE NOT FREE TO GO”.
You keep mistating policies and then trying to read into them purposes that are not there.
The purpose of policies is NOT to provide the means to allow criminals to escape.
They exist to balance the risk to the safety of the officer against the risk to the safety of the public from the law breaker.
ICE does not want lots of injured and dead ICE officers.
But they also do not want to create a “get out of jail free” card.
Nor do they want to allow every stopped Vehicle to turn into a high speed chase.
You ignore these things.
Good was about to be arrested. She was disobeying a lawful order.
Had she succeeded in driving away – she was going to be chased down and arressted – and car chases are dangerous – not just ot LEOs but to the public.
My wife did an article on police chases for UofP law review while she was in Law school.
Police vehicle chases pretty much always end badly – innocent bystanders get killed or injured – sometimes by the police more often by the fleeing criminal. Police Officers are not the skilled drivers they think they are – but ordinary people are WORSE.
The moment Good decided to flee – she became reckless, she was rushing and not focused on safety but escape.
I do not as an example beleive she intentionally aimed her vehicle at the officer – but Contrary to left wing nut claims she was headed straight at him when she hit him, and she was initially turning left – toward him and other officers before she swung right.
It is not even clear that the veer to the right did not occur until after she was shot.
But as Turley notes – her unknowable intentions are irrelevant. much of the damaging information about her is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the totality of the circumstances arround the time the officer used deadly force.
I want to note AGAIN – Government is FORCE. Ultimately EVERY law is imposed by FORCE.
If you jay walk – you will get a ticket – if you do not accept the ticket or you refuse to pay eventually you will have to deal with an armed LEO.
If you continue to resist – you will be arrested for resisting. If you escalate past that – eventually guns will be drawn and if necescary used.
The most trivial or laws is completely pointless if Govenrment is unwilling to kill people if they choose to absolutely refuse to comply.
Those of you on the left need to remember that ALL law all government is FORCE – no exception.
If you are unwilling to kill people who refuse to obey a law you pass – do not pass that law.
Next you can be absolutely certain there is no “policy” that universally says if the suspect does X let them get away with it.
Rene Good interfered with Law Enforcement performing their duty.
She was going to be arrested, charged and likely convicted.
Turly thinks that she would likely have been convicted of a misdemeanor. Given her long records of interfering with ICE – I think she would have been charged and likely convicted of the felony version.
Regardless an arrest was going to happen – it was inevitable.
Fleeing was only going to add charges. It was also only going to increase the risk to others.
SCOTUS recently ruled that fleeing ALONE is insufficient to justify the use of deadly force.
It has NOT ruled that you can not use deadly force against someone fleeing – only that you need MORE than mere flight.
Driving a 5000lb vehicle recklessly is likely alone sufficient.
A police officer standing infront of a non moving car is not a tactic to justify the use of deadly force.
It is a tactic to get YOU to chose not to do something stupid and try to flee.
There is a policy against stepping in front of moving cars – with LOTS of exceptions, because once the car is moving the choice to flee has already been made – you have already picked stupid. and now the officer must balance the risk to others against the risk to himself.
John Say,
“ That said Absolutely ICE and other LEOs may place themselves in front of a stopped vehicle – possibly with Gun Drawn to convey the clear message “YOU ARE UNDER ARREST”. “YOU ARE NOT FREE TO GO”.
You have no idea what you are talking about and has a poor grasp of the facts.
ICE does not do traffic stops or arrest people for no reason. What did Good do that was wrong?
She was clearly not blocking ICE from leaving. Two cars were able to get past her without an issue and she was waving the ICE truck to get past her. They chose NOT to get past her and instead chose to confront her. What did she do wrong?
ICE had no authority to tell her to get out of the car or arrest her. Period. The question before a judge would be what did she do wrong to elicit an arrest? ICE has no authority to conduct traffic stops or enforce traffic laws.
She was under no obligation to get out of her car and she had every right to leave. Ross in clear violation of ICE policy regarding standing in front of vehicles chose to do so in an attempt to prevent her from leaving. They wanted her to leave and she chose to do so.
“ A police officer standing infront of a non moving car is not a tactic to justify the use of deadly force.
It is a tactic to get YOU to chose not to do something stupid and try to flee.”
ICE are NOT police officers John. Conflating police officers with ICE is not helping your argument.
Police departments around the country have policies AGAINST standing in front of cars to effect an arrest. If an officer has no choice to move away from a car then and only then can deadly force be justified. Ross had plenty of reason NOT to get in front of the car and to avoid being in front of it. He put himself in harm’s way in violation of ICE policy.
“ Good was about to be arrested. She was disobeying a lawful order.
Had she succeeded in driving away – she was going to be chased down and arressted – and car chases are dangerous – not just ot LEOs but to the public.”
There was no reason to arrest her in the first place. They were trying to intimidate and unlawfully arrest her for what? She was not obstructing or impeding their path. Two cars already went by without an issue and ICE could have chosen to proceed without an incident. They chose to confront her because they did not want her to keep following them which is NOT a crime.
They could have just taken a picture of her car and license plate and either cited her or press charges later. You KNOW they could do that with ease. They chose confrontation and escalation.
Notice that she isn’t being accused of obstruction or interference. There was no reason why ICE could not just drive past her.
“ SCOTUS recently ruled that fleeing ALONE is insufficient to justify the use of deadly force.
It has NOT ruled that you can not use deadly force against someone fleeing – only that you need MORE than mere flight.
Driving a 5000lb vehicle recklessly is likely alone sufficient.”
She wasn’t driving recklessly. Lurching a few feet to get away is not reckless driving. Ross was never in any danger of serious harm or injury. Plus he was not supposed to stand in front of the vehicle. She had every right to leave and she chose to do that. Ross stupidly chose to get in front of the vehicle and was in the process of getting to the door. He fired one shot at the windshield and two more AFTER he was not in front of the car. That was manslaughter the moment he put two more shots on the ope window of a fleeing car with nobody in front. Details matter John.
“ Fleeing was only going to add charges. It was also only going to increase the risk to others.”
Fleeing from what? She was NOT under arrest. ICE couldn’t legally detain her. Telling her to get out of the car is NOT saying she is under arrest. She had every right to leave at that moment. I will emphasize again, ICE does not have the authority to make traffic stops, arrest people for violating traffic codes, or simply telling people to get out a car unless they are executing an arrest warrant for that particular person. ICE are NOT the police. There is a difference.
ICE and DHS have already been caught outright lying to judges and the public. Based on YOUR logic why should they be trusted with what they claim?
You keep trying to pretned that government has created policies that allow people to get away with crimes.
The purpose of the policies you mis-cite is to FIRST keep the general public safe.
Next to keep police as safe as possible – though it is their duty to take risks to reduce the risk to the public.
The purpose is not to provide those being arrested with a guaranteed means of escape.
Next LEOs are NOT looking for excuses to shoot people.
almost no one wants to ever kill someone else.
Taking peoples lives – even horrible heinous peoples lives is a life altering event for most people.
Including police officers.
Contra the left – Police shootings are uncommon.
There are about 1M LEO’s in the US
“The Washington Post has tracked shootings since 2015, reporting more than 5,000 incidents since their tracking began.
The database can also classify people in various categories including race, age, weapon etc.
According to the database, 6,600 have been killed since 2015, including 6,303 men and 294 women.
Among those killed, 3,878 were armed with a gun,
1,119 were armed with a knife,
218 were armed with a vehicle,
244 had a toy weapon,
and 421 were unarmed.”
Over the same period of time over 2500 LEO’s were killed.
The average police officer has a 1:75 chance of killing someone each year – that means only about 1/4 of all police EVER kill someone.
But they also have about 1:200 chance each year of being killed.
The report addresses vehicles that are already in motion and the officer steps into the exit path. The report has no bearing on this situation. Besides, in this case, the movement of the car prior to the incident was to the rear.
Turley is correct to ignore the speed of the vehicle when it hit the parked car
In fact the absolute speed at any moment is irrelevant
It is the acceleration that matters
F = ma
Force = mass * acceleration
A 5000lb vehicle traveling 2 mph
Can kill or seriously injure you
If it is accelerating
While the same speed will have a fraction of the force if it is braking
Good was accelerating rapidly from a dead stop
With respect to mayor frey
Refrigerator doors have a mass of 10-20lbs
They are not 5000lb SUVs
Again
F = ma
2 mph is velocity, its not the acceleration. You use v squared on 2g. A=ft/s squared.
Good one
Squaring velocity leads you to kinetic energy, not acceleration or force.
Correct – I explicitly said IF IT IS ACCELERATING
“ A 5000lb vehicle traveling 2 mph
Can kill or seriously injure you”
If you’re between the vehicle and a solid surface like a wall or another vehicle. Ross was nowhere in danger of being hurt by being bumped by a care barely moving 2mph.
Good was on an icy road and any rate of acceleration would have been attenuated by the poor traction on the icy road. Your attempt to show the danger Ross faced is laughable. He walked away unscathed. Remember he’s wearing body armor and tactical gear. The most he could have gotten from that encounter was a bruised ego.
Getting out the way to shoot into the open window two more times was not justified in any way. Those shots were made in anger. Not self defense.
X says: Getting out the way to shoot into the open window two more times was not justified in any way. Those shots were made in anger. Not self defense.
SCOTUS decisions swiftly deal with pathological liars who attempt to flaunt their Internet Law degrees: PLUMHOFF v. RICKART (2014)
See also:
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm”
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this: (1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and (2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also, (3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
354 days left in 2026 for daily cringe-worthy personal failure from X.
Look at this. So Dr george knows EMS. A 5000lb vehicle traveling 2 mph
Can kill or seriously injure you”
If you’re between the vehicle and a solid surface like a wall or another vehicle. Ross was nowhere in danger of being hurt by being bumped by a care barely moving 2mph.
This loon is full of BS.
BS huh? Now prove it. You’re the one here with 2 “collage” degrees.
“You should your own blog.” Is that English? What college did you go to?
Nope, not a genius. Just using logic, critical thinking, reason and common sense. Traits that continue to escape you.
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/12/the-ice-elephant-why-the-law-requires-all-the-facts/comment-page-2/#comment-2594127
It’s not measured mph, it’s force that’s measured because the mass is accelerating.
“If you’re between the vehicle and a solid surface like a wall or another vehicle.”
If you are between the vehicle and a solid surface – then the vehicle is rapidly DECELERATING.
Absolutely that can cause death or serious injury.
But exactly the same harm will occur if the vehicle is ACCELERATING at the same rate – with no solid surface.
It is NOT the solid surface that is relevant it is that the solid surface results in high deceleratintion.
The accelleration rate of the SUV is unrelated to its speed.
Good was spinning her wheels – she was likely floored
That means an acceleration rate of 4m/s^2 or higher.
The force would be 8800N
The force needed to break bone is 4000N.
Even at a SLOW acceleration of 2m/s^2 there would be a risk of breaking bones.
“Ross was nowhere in danger of being hurt by being bumped by a care barely moving 2mph.”
The speed is irrelevant it is the acceleration that matters.
“Good was on an icy road and any rate of acceleration would have been attenuated by the poor traction on the icy road.”
Actually that makes it worse and you can see that in the video.
The wheels spin on the ice and then “catch” on the asphault resulting in a HIGHER than normal instantaneous acceleration.
Anyone who has experienced the jerking of a vehicle under slippery conditions would know that is because the acceleration is jumping up and down as traction is gained and lost.
“Your attempt to show the danger Ross faced is laughable.”
Because you say so ?
Again you can check things on the web.
Force needed to break bone is 4000N.
SUV acceleration rates are 2-4m/s^2
The SUV weights 4200-5000lbs
Do the math – if you cant there are online force calculators.
Regardless in this instance – the Force is between about 3500N and 8000N depending on the actual acceleration and the exact weight of the car.
That MIGHT not break bone – but that would only be because the body tissue absorbs the impact and reduces the instantaneous acceleration.
It is near certain the Agent is very sore where hit. Probably bruised. Possibly even with a bruise on the bone.
I would further note the force would also depend on how firmly his feet were planted. The more firm the greater the damage.
As he actually WAS moving right to left – he is not likely firmly planted, further he DID jump out of the way but it is not clear if that was before or after impact.
Regardless while there is a large range here because of factors we do not know.
It is absolutely certain that serious injury was possible
It is called Physics.
” He walked away unscathed.”
So you say. Not what DOJ says
“Remember he’s wearing body armor and tactical gear.”
Tacticle gear is irrelevant.
It is not normal to wear body armor below the waste – certainly not on the thighs.
But even if he were all that does is spreads the force out – that is useful when stopping a bullet whose impact is a very small area.
Do you think body armor is going to make any difference against a sabot ?
Regardless can you please reread newtons laws in your HS physics books.
“Getting out the way to shoot into the open window two more times was not justified in any way.”
Not relevant – once the first shot was justified others within a second are also.
“Those shots were made in anger. Not self defense.”
People defending themselves from lethal force are usually angry.
Anger is irrelevant.
Of Course he was angry that suddenly he was struck by a 5000lb SUV.
By ms. rainbows and buttlerflies and unicorn farts Good.