Please zip Wisbech's fly up before you finish down there, there's a good lad Dan.
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.
Wales
England
USA
today.yougov.com