US Politics

[Spiderman]

A woman was killed and that certainly warrants a proper investigation. The proximity of all concerned makes it a split-second decision.

What is the protocol for responding to people who repeatedly don't follow law enforcement requests. There is no room for step aside policing in the US when faced with these circumstances as the risk to personal injury or worse is very high indeed.

Did he have time to "dodge the car? Could he have let the vehicle pass and shot from behind in a more controlled manner. Should he have just let the woman go on her way and followed up in later?

It's a sad day now that the body camera is a necessary tool to determine the truth of any specific circumstance and as we have seen in this forum there is still massive differences in interpretation. I'm 100% behind law enforcement/federal agents but agree blanket immunity if that is correct is not reasonable under any circumstances.

Luckily the police at Manchester airport had them, otherwise social media and some on here would have hung drawn and quartered law enforcement officers doing their job

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Just about, though according to reports he was clipped.

The point is though he had to dodge, and quickly from the video.

If he had been looking away she would have hit him full on.

The video shows it quite clearly, despite what some have said.

It certainly does not. What isn’t clear is if there was any contact at all but if there was it was only the mildest of brushes. I bet there’s no mark on the car, or wasn’t when taken in for examination! He wasn’t standing fully in front at any time. He was to the drivers side. That’s how how he was able to try the door and then shoot through the open window. There was never a possibility he could have been hit full on, but even if there was, he wasn’t. He fired after he had slipped on the ice and she was clear of him and moving away, so without any just cause at all.

 

[Spindle]

F*ck me, you might be even worse than eaglesdare at this. Almost impressive.

One common denominator, it's you

 

[Spindle]

See what I mean, mate?

The 'truth ' from Spindle/Tate (the portmanteau name would be 'Spite') is garnished by one Mario Fratto, apparently an impartial lawyer and his 'expert's' view. Of course he omits to inform us that Fratto is a republican (Mario Fratto (Republican Party) ran for election to the U.S. House to represent New York's 24th Congressional District. He lost in the Republican primary on June 25, 2024). If I was going to refer to an impartial opinion, I certainly wouldn't consider him to be one; how could anybody?

Then we hear that, "apart from the wheels turning right" everything else pointed to her driving at the agent with intent to endanger life. That little exception is absolutely crucial as to her intent. She was turning her car away from the scene: that's no small matter we can or should just brush over. Why brush over it so readily? It's pivotal.

In Frizzo's video evidence, as the car moves we see the agent seemingly leaning onto the bonnet, as if trying to halt the car, thus putting himself into unnecessary danger. He then fires three shots into the front of the car.

On the point of law about her intent, does it warrant shooting her at all? In Fratto's 'evidence', which I'm presuming is to show how disruptive she was being, we hear a witness saying that protesters (of which she was one) had been hindering the agents all day up to the shooting. No doubt the agents would have found this to be aggravating. However, it does tell us that Good was not going to flee beyond apprehension; she had been there all day and would, no doubt, continue her aggravating behaviour further on. In any event, surely those agents would have taken the car reg already and if not, then during the incident. If she drove off, they ought to have known that they could detain her later knowing her details from the reg. Then would be the point to arrest and charge her, whatever that charge would be.

The assertion that she presented a danger to life after she driven off is just completely unlikely since she'd been there all day and it was clear that she wanted to hinder the agents but never to use her car as a weapon.

Fratto tells us that the agent who shot Good had previously been dragged along the road by a felon's car only last June (!!) necessitating a hospital stay. This is given as some kind of mitigation, I'm assuming. Can anyone tell me how a serving officer who had suffered such trauma could be allowed back into duty without proper management or aftercare in January? Now, I expect the pro agent forces on here would be barking "How do you know there was no aftercare?!?!" to which I would reply "Clearly not enough" or else why would that previous incident have any relevance here?

Situations like those surrounding Good and her confederates were bound to be full of tension and it seems the agent was not ready/ to face these type of scenarios. Yes, the protesters were a pain in the arse but a properly trained agent will expect this; it's par for the course. The fact that an agent shouted "F****** B****" does not suggest, in any way, that the agents present had kept a calm, professional attitude during the exchange.

Yes, not getting out of the car when asked has proved to be a fatal error and, certainly, if she hadn't been there at all, then none of this would've happened. However, she was present and her life was lost by the inappropriate way that the agents, particularly Ross, acted. It caused death; a death which was entirely unnecessary.

Take the car reg, let her leave if that's what she wants, then apprehend her later in a calmer, more controlled environment., then charge her, if considered appropriate.

To me, I'm thinking that, in my own country, I'd want all policing to be accountable. Once officers are given automatic immunity, no matter what they do, it's a danger signal to our civil liberties and safety. Would you want our police force to have absolute immunity?

Perhaps you do.

TL;DR

 

[Spindle]

If you want me to read your posts then lower the tone. I have not displayed any aggressive behavior or insults to you in my posts.

He must've been one easy teacher to wind up. Wouldn't have survived in my school.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Everything is somewhat subjectives as no one truly knows the intent of both parties at that particular moment.

A couple of points I feel are relevant.

The working environment for federal agents is extremely difficult and dangerous.

This officer had been “attacked” by a moving vehicle before and received significant injuries. Not life threatening that time but could have been. How might anyone react next time when faced with similar circumstances?

The woman parked her car there for a reason. Why? I’m assuming it was for confrontational purposes?

Her “wife” was out of the car mouthing off with a camera looking for a reaction and social media content?

The “wife” was returning to the car to get in when the woman decided to drive off. Why did she not wait for her wife to get in?

This is tragic for all concerned and could have been easily avoided. Some will blame Trump because they don’t like him or his policies. Some will blame the federal agents because he’s enforcing the laws they disagree with and some will blame the woman as her actions directly started the sequence of events.

The world and how we see it is so polarized that compromise and concession is rarely possible.

I’m sure these words will resonate with some but anger others.

Your description of all that happened prior to the incident may well be completely correct. We can agree, or disagree about them as much as we like. That though doesn’t change what actually happened. Nor does it justify it. Trump’s policies may be distasteful to some, whilst necessary to others but he didn’t pull the trigger. The agent could claim mitigation because of a lack of training or mission clarity but ultimately he is personally responsible for his actions.

Whatever relationship Good was in, whatever her activities or reasons for being there were, doesn’t change that either.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Not only that but it's about defending threats to the public too. It doesn't have to be a threat to the officer, and that includes lethal force to prevent getaway of a public threat. She was about to speed off, that's a threat.

Of course true and never disputed. Responses have to be proportionate to the threat. Someone shooting people on a beach must expect to be shot himself. Not though an unarmed woman trying to drive away from a threat. Her “speeding off” was not a threat. She was still in first gear.

 

[Spindle]

That's not part of the calculation.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

It's amazing how many people were actually there and know everything that happened.

What’s amazing is that with the clearest possible video evidence some remain stubbornly determined to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes and allow their prejudices to dominate reason. We don’t know all that happened before or after the event but we can see for ourselves what happened during it.

 

[Spiderman]

Of course true and never disputed. Responses have to be proportionate to the threat. Someone shooting people on a beach must expect to be shot himself. Not though an unarmed woman trying to drive away from a threat. Her “speeding off” was not a threat. She was still in first gear.

I hardly think a law enforcement officer saying “ get out of the car” is a threat

 

[Spiderman]

What’s amazing is that with the clearest possible video evidence some remain stubbornly determined to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes and allow their prejudices to dominate reason. We don’t know all that happened before or after the event but we can see for ourselves what happened during it.

You do realise how ironic this is coming from you, right?

 

[georgenorman]

What’s amazing is that with the clearest possible video evidence some remain stubbornly determined to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes and allow their prejudices to dominate reason. We don’t know all that happened before or after the event but we can see for ourselves what happened during it.

Like your response to the video evidence of the Trump assassination attempt you mean?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Don't deliberately obstruct armed officers of the law in their duty. Because accidents can happen.

Whilst that would be sensible advice to anyone deciding to confront the thugs being put in an ICE uniform and sent into locations where they are uninvited and unwelcome, it doesn’t justify or excuse what happened. This wasn’t an accident.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

You do realise how ironic this is coming from you, right?

Only those who are completely prejudiced themselves would consider my approach to be ironic.

I don’t deny for a moment that I have expectations of the kind of behaviour we saw from that agent. ICE agents have previous. Having expectations doesn’t mean that you are incapable of viewing events and evaluating them on their merits. I can, and do, and have. Quite unlike some posting here.

 

[georgenorman]

Only those who are completely prejudiced themselves would consider my approach to be ironic.

I don’t deny for a moment that I have expectations of the kind of behaviour we saw from that agent. ICE agents have previous. Having expectations doesn’t mean that you are incapable of viewing events and evaluating them on their merits. I can, and do, and have. Quite unlike some posting here.

We can all remember your disgusting reactions to the killings of Ashli Babbitt and Charlie Kirk.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I hardly think a law enforcement officer saying “ get out of the car” is a threat

He wasn’t alone. She probably knew he was armed. He had tried to open her door. She knew she wasn’t an illegal immigrant so he had no authority over her. If that was me I would feel threatened. I never seek confrontation in such circumstances. I move away from it. Which is what it seems clear she did too.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Luckily the police at Manchester airport had them, otherwise social media and some on here would have hung drawn and quartered law enforcement officers doing their job

Why?

Whilst nobody involved in that incident, besides the female officer, emerged beyond criticism, the police were responding to an altercation and were then attacked themselves. They restrained with tasers. Not guns. There aren’t any parallels with this incident. Shooting a citizen, clearly not an illegal immigrant, who has annoyed you, isn’t part of the job.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

When I have been confronted by legally armed personnel, enforcing legal frameworks, I didn't seek to run away. Of course i felt threatened. I had a firearm (rifle) pointing at my head.
I did not seek to escape or shoot my way out.
I did exactly as I was told, funnily enough.

She chose not to do what was instructed. Different outcome

And even had the personnel not been armed, I would have obeyed instructions. Because I was brought up like that. Respect for authority and not putting myself in harms way,

 

[Spindle]

What’s amazing is that with the clearest possible video evidence some remain stubbornly determined to disbelieve the evidence of their own eyes and allow their prejudices to dominate reason.

Finally, some self awareness.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Here is a real law enforcement officer expressing her opinion on the ICE shooting of Good. Backed up by the AJ she leaves no doubt about what is going to happen.