ICE murdered an innocent woman

JDs Couch said:
Exactly. Ms Good was clearly turning her wheels to avoid the officer who moved into her path. Then he shot her once the vehicle was past him, in no danger to anyone.
Click to expand...
Except for the bullet hole in the windshield
How did the officer change the direction of a speeding bullet? That is some feat.
 
613405067_1788060498817742_2056381156525223967_n.jpg

denzel-training-day.gif
 
lester said:
“I made her come down here, it’s my fault,”
I feel like it's my fault, I got her killed

Felony Murder Rule: In some jurisdictions, deaths that occur during the commission of certain dangerous felonies (that do not qualify for first-degree murder charges) may be classified as second-degree murder

.
Click to expand...
Manslaughter in the minimum, one would think.
 
67mike said:
Resorting to name calling. Geez.

It will be in courts. The very issue you cling to may be the first hurdle to get over, not my area of expertise or concern.
Click to expand...
Basketball and tennis are in courts as well. Racquetball too.
 
Robostyle said:
That isn't the agent's fault. And i've thought this since day 1-
She is not from minnesota, and may not be used to driving on snow/ice, and she may not have seen the agent until it was too late.
A driver is supposed to be in control of their vehicle at all times.
Click to expand...
She was probably shell-scocked and panicked. You are correct though, driver needs to ensure it us safe to proceed.
 
Double black dildo headed 67michael is quite active today, must be really hurting inside just like a true cuck. :ROFLMAO:
 
67mike said:
This video is great.

Very useful.
Her partner was belligerent to the ice agent and most likely got him very agitated.

The ice agent was bumped, for sure. Not enough force to knock him down: which is a key fact.

Also could rause doubt that the driver even realize he had walked over and was in front of her vehicle?
Click to expand...
It's not a key fact at all dude. There is truckloads of precedence regarding the reasonable man standard. And as it applies to LE it's almost never went against the officer. Reasonable doubt that the driver realized he was in front of her is also irrelevant. The two key things legally speaking are the bullet hole in the windshield and the statutory classification of an automobile as a deadly weapon.

I'm not sure where you get this idea that any of that is key, but whoever you got it from is no lawyer. It sounds very much like some dumb shit a pundit would say. It's definitely not grounded in fact.
 
67mike said:
Well I am sure that the Minnesota Prosecuters might start with these:

2025 Minnesota Statutes​

Resources​

Chapter 609​

Section 609.066​

Recent History​

Topics​

609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.​

Subdivision 1.​


For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.

Subd. 1a.​


The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:

(1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law;

(2) as set forth below, it is the intent of the legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life or to prevent great bodily harm. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case;

(3) that the decision by a peace officer to use deadly force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using deadly force; and

(4) that peace officers should exercise special care when interacting with individuals with known physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities as an individual's disability may affect the individual's ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers.

Subd. 2.​


(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).
Click to expand...
Dude, you think some Minnesota LE statute applies federally ? Do you think the state of Minnesota has any jurisdiction over federal officers ? I hate to tell you man, but you are going to end up seriously disappointed when this is all over.
 
IMG_7018-1536x1024.jpg


SHE WAS A MOTHER, HER SON HAS NO PARENTS NOW, THEY HAD NO "WARRANTS", SHE DID NOTHING "WRONG", THEY SHOT HER IN THE FACE, SHE WAS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN. YOU CAN'T SHOOT SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO OR BECAUSE THEY "DRIVE A CAR".
IF THEY DID IT TO HER THEY'LL DO IT TO YOU.
 
I watched the murderer's cell phone video and the fact that they believe this to be exculpatory is genuinely insane.

It shows her trying to avoid him. *IF* he was hit, it was because he was in violation of law enforcement protocol to GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY of a moving vehicle.

Then the POS gestapo Nazi calls the innocent woman he just murdered a "fucking bitch".

Yep, fuck ICE alright.
 
Last edited:
shar-vell Dan said:
IMG_7018-1536x1024.jpg


SHE WAS A MOTHER, HER SON HAS NO PARENTS NOW, THEY HAD NO "WARRANTS", SHE DID NOTHING "WRONG", THEY SHOT HER IN THE FACE, SHE WAS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN. YOU CAN'T SHOOT SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO OR BECAUSE THEY "DRIVE A CAR".
IF THEY DID IT TO HER THEY'LL DO IT TO YOU.
Click to expand...
Thanks for giving us your well thought out assessment. You've really enriched the content of this thread.
 
shar-vell Dan said:
SHE WAS A MOTHER, HER SON HAS NO PARENTS NOW, THEY HAD NO "WARRANTS", SHE DID NOTHING "WRONG", THEY SHOT HER IN THE FACE, SHE WAS A UNITED STATES CITIZEN. YOU CAN'T SHOOT SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO OR BECAUSE THEY "DRIVE A CAR".
IF THEY DID IT TO HER THEY'LL DO IT TO YOU.
Click to expand...
Almost none of this obvious propaganda is true. She was a mother, and a US citizen. Everything else is either straight up wrong, or irrelevant.
Like Floyd Eye said- you are fucking dumb.
 
JDs Couch said:
I watched the murderer's cell phone video and the fact that they believe this to be exculpatory is genuinely insane.

It shows her trying to avoid him. *IF* he was hit, it was because he was in violation of law enforcement protocol to GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY of a moving vehicle.

Then the POS gestapo Nazi calls the innocent woman he just murdered a "fucking bitch".

Yep, fuck ICE alright.
Click to expand...
Time for you to fuck off, back to reddit.
 
JDs Couch said:
I watched the murderer's cell phone video and the fact that they believe this to be exculpatory is genuinely insane.

It shows her trying to avoid him. *IF* he was hit, it was because he was in violation of law enforcement protocol to GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY of a moving vehicle.

Then the POS gestapo Nazi calls the innocent woman he just murdered a "fucking bitch".

Yep, fuck ICE alright.
Click to expand...
Of course, say what you will but to say she was innocent isn't true.

She was there to aggravate and interfere...that's not being innocent.

Show a braincell as you know this to be true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

watson503
Rob Reiner & Wife Murdered In Their Home
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
2K
JamesTiberiusKirk
JamesTiberiusKirk
psychodave
PA Democrat confesses to intent to murder. Shoots person point blank in the head.
3 4 5
Replies
80
Views
5K
Dan Gleesak
Dan Gleesak
nightlight
Limp Bizkit bassist Sam Rivers was murdered
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
311boogieman
311boogieman
skoora
Rob Reiner and the Mrs…R.I.P.
Replies
0
Views
35
skoora
skoora
rsm
Trump grants White South Africans refugee status
4 5 6
Replies
108
Views
7K
The Blazing Saddle
The Blazing Saddle
Back
Top