Considering the behavior of ICE, it seems like they hired some folks just desperate to find legal cover to shoot someone. There are numerous videos of them casually drawing their weapons on protesters.
Here's the legal rubric, the "Five Elements of Self-Defense":
1. avoidance: duty to retreat: You must attempt to retreat or avoid the confrontation if it is safe and possible to do so without increasing danger.
2. innocence (non-aggressor): You must not be the initial aggressor or have provoked the incident.
3. imminence: The threat must be immediate and underway (or about to begin imminently)
4. proportionality: The force used must match the threat level without excess.
5. reasonableness: Your belief in the necessity of deadly force must be reasonable based on the facts known to you at the time.
To me (3) seems least controversial and (1) most controversial.
2. Not relevant as the police officer was being followed and harassed by the motorist and others while attempting to do his job.
3. The police officer was standing in front of the vehicle, unable to see the direction of his tires. He did see the vehicle was shifted into forward and rapidly accelerated. Watch video of the vehicle continuing to accelerate after the shot and then crash down the road a ways.
4. This is probably the strongest element. The police officer had a large vehicle accelerating at him and hit him, but perhaps he could have dodged or gone around it. It is hard to say given he had only one second to make the decision in a heated and dangerous situation, versus all of us arm chair quarterbacking with slow motion video.
5. The police officer could not see the tires of the vehicle, but he could see the vehicle being accelerated towards him. His belief was probably reasonable.
The vehicle did not hit the ICE agent. The video footage clearly shows the agent first stepping in front of the vehicle, then around to the driver's side with weapon drawn and aimed.
The vehicle did not accelerate toward him, it was turning away.
On Wednesday in Minneapolis, a federal agent fatally shot a motorist, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good. Trump administration officials said these were “defensive shots” fired because the officer was being run over. But our analysis of bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range. Here’s how events unfolded. Moments before the shooting, the victim’s maroon SUV is stopped in the middle of the street. Multiple unmarked federal vehicles are idling nearby. Secretary Noem alleged the motorist “was blocking the officers in.” Bystanders are blowing whistles and yelling at federal agents. Then, federal vehicles start moving toward the maroon SUV with sirens and lights blaring. A federal agent films the scene on his phone. The driver rolls forward slightly, turning left, then stops and waves for others to go ahead. Two agents exit this silver pickup and walk toward the vehicle. Moments later, shots are fired. Let’s look at the scene again more closely. This is the agent who shoots the driver. He walks around the car filming and disappears from view. Other agents pull up and order the driver to exit her vehicle. One of them grabs at the door handle and reaches inside. The SUV reverses, then turns right, apparently attempting to leave. At the same time, the agent filming crosses toward the left of the vehicle and grabs his gun. He opens fire on the motorist and continues shooting as she drives past. The moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV and the wheels are pointing to the right away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it’s true that at this moment, in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV. The SUV crashes into a white car parked down the road. A bystander runs toward the collision. The federal agents on scene do not appear to rush to provide emergency medical care. Eventually, the agent who shot the motorist approaches the vehicle. Seconds later, he turns back around and tells his colleagues to call 911. Agents blocked several bystanders who attempt to provide medical care, including one who identifies himself as a physician. At the same time, several agents, including the agent who opened fire, get in their vehicles and drive off, apparently altering the active crime scene.
We're hearing two extreme interpretations of what happened from at least two political sides. Only one video was initially shown.
But there were multiple persons filming the incident, the police vehicles nearby likely had cameras and likely some officers had body cameras as well. And there may be surveillance video cameras on buildings too.
In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
I agree with that. Perhaps this is one of those "extreme things". But current interpretations of this event are politically extreme and harmfully polarizing to us as a people. So all the more reason to be cautious and circumspect.
Neither you nor I were present when the event occurred and, even were we present, we would not have experienced all viewpoints. To presume we understand completely what happened in toto and what should be done as a consequence of the event would compound mistake upon mistake.
Please remain calm.
My viewpoint is neither "a mad, mad take" nor "literal prejudice". nor "an opinion based on basically nothing". My viewpoint is a statement of our individual ignorance, of our lack of complete information, and a claim that none of us are omniscient. And it is a request that we be patient and trust our juridical system to proceed the way it was intended.
Although difficult, We must withhold judgement until all evidence has been presented.
Noem's straight up defense of the shooting appears to have been the declaration of "open season".
The precedent for which disciplinary action will be taken has not yet been set.
A couple in Portland were shot by ICE yesterday. Open season indeed.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/us/portland-oregon-border-pat...
Considering the behavior of ICE, it seems like they hired some folks just desperate to find legal cover to shoot someone. There are numerous videos of them casually drawing their weapons on protesters.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agen...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_poin...
Here's the legal rubric, the "Five Elements of Self-Defense":
To me (3) seems least controversial and (1) most controversial.1) I would agree that the officer did not try to retreat. But police officers do NOT have a duty to retreat as their line of work requires them to confront suspects - https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=113...
2. Not relevant as the police officer was being followed and harassed by the motorist and others while attempting to do his job.
3. The police officer was standing in front of the vehicle, unable to see the direction of his tires. He did see the vehicle was shifted into forward and rapidly accelerated. Watch video of the vehicle continuing to accelerate after the shot and then crash down the road a ways.
4. This is probably the strongest element. The police officer had a large vehicle accelerating at him and hit him, but perhaps he could have dodged or gone around it. It is hard to say given he had only one second to make the decision in a heated and dangerous situation, versus all of us arm chair quarterbacking with slow motion video.
5. The police officer could not see the tires of the vehicle, but he could see the vehicle being accelerated towards him. His belief was probably reasonable.
Have you seen the video from the officer's perspective?
The one where after he shoots her dead he says "fucking bitch?" The one where her last words are "we are not mad at you?"
The vehicle did not hit the ICE agent. The video footage clearly shows the agent first stepping in front of the vehicle, then around to the driver's side with weapon drawn and aimed. The vehicle did not accelerate toward him, it was turning away.
2 is at worst, still not a crime, and the citizen was trying to leave and get out of there when she was shot and murdered
2 is also "debatable" because we were told it by Noem/Trump, not by anyone at the scene, or shown in any video
I'm reminded of a Twitter joke:
> I have a mental illness that makes me think that people will change their minds if presented with correct arguments, appropriate facts and data.
[dead]
On Wednesday in Minneapolis, a federal agent fatally shot a motorist, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good. Trump administration officials said these were “defensive shots” fired because the officer was being run over. But our analysis of bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range. Here’s how events unfolded. Moments before the shooting, the victim’s maroon SUV is stopped in the middle of the street. Multiple unmarked federal vehicles are idling nearby. Secretary Noem alleged the motorist “was blocking the officers in.” Bystanders are blowing whistles and yelling at federal agents. Then, federal vehicles start moving toward the maroon SUV with sirens and lights blaring. A federal agent films the scene on his phone. The driver rolls forward slightly, turning left, then stops and waves for others to go ahead. Two agents exit this silver pickup and walk toward the vehicle. Moments later, shots are fired. Let’s look at the scene again more closely. This is the agent who shoots the driver. He walks around the car filming and disappears from view. Other agents pull up and order the driver to exit her vehicle. One of them grabs at the door handle and reaches inside. The SUV reverses, then turns right, apparently attempting to leave. At the same time, the agent filming crosses toward the left of the vehicle and grabs his gun. He opens fire on the motorist and continues shooting as she drives past. The moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV and the wheels are pointing to the right away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it’s true that at this moment, in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV. The SUV crashes into a white car parked down the road. A bystander runs toward the collision. The federal agents on scene do not appear to rush to provide emergency medical care. Eventually, the agent who shot the motorist approaches the vehicle. Seconds later, he turns back around and tells his colleagues to call 911. Agents blocked several bystanders who attempt to provide medical care, including one who identifies himself as a physician. At the same time, several agents, including the agent who opened fire, get in their vehicles and drive off, apparently altering the active crime scene.
We're hearing two extreme interpretations of what happened from at least two political sides. Only one video was initially shown.
But there were multiple persons filming the incident, the police vehicles nearby likely had cameras and likely some officers had body cameras as well. And there may be surveillance video cameras on buildings too.
In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
We now have the footage from the killer's camera. In my the interpretation that this was a murder was not extreme enough.
Sometimes extreme things happen. I mean this:
>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing.
twixfel says >"Sometimes extreme things happen."<
I agree with that. Perhaps this is one of those "extreme things". But current interpretations of this event are politically extreme and harmfully polarizing to us as a people. So all the more reason to be cautious and circumspect.
Neither you nor I were present when the event occurred and, even were we present, we would not have experienced all viewpoints. To presume we understand completely what happened in toto and what should be done as a consequence of the event would compound mistake upon mistake.
Please remain calm.
My viewpoint is neither "a mad, mad take" nor "literal prejudice". nor "an opinion based on basically nothing". My viewpoint is a statement of our individual ignorance, of our lack of complete information, and a claim that none of us are omniscient. And it is a request that we be patient and trust our juridical system to proceed the way it was intended.
Although difficult, We must withhold judgement until all evidence has been presented.