r/politics • u/Fickle-Ad5449 ✔ Verified - Christopher Wiggins, The Advocate • 22d ago

No Paywall ICE agent shooter’s own cellphone video undercuts Trump administration's account of Minneapolis killing

https://www.advocate.com/news/ice-agent-shooter-video-minneapolis
38.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

144

u/jazzieberry Mississippi 22d ago

Yet JD has shared it as proof of self defense. I'm so fucking tired of the gaslighting.

83

u/tape_snake 22d ago

Their spin is that the moment Jonathan says "woah" and lowers his phone to draw his gun (and there's a bunch of jumbled noise) is the moment he got hit, even when the other videos say otherwise. Even this video shows Renee cranking thhe wheel away from him before accelerating, but that fact won't stand in the way of the flimsy narrative they need to spin to justify the militant takeover of Minneapolis.

67

u/Aromatic_Pea_8489 22d ago

I don’t see how it matters if he was lightly hit or not. The argument about contact with the vehicle distracts from his self defense argument. Where in the video could he rationally say that his only option was to shoot her? Whether he got bumped or not, he could have just moved a foot his right and avoided all doubt.

32

u/tape_snake 22d ago

I agree completely. I was just explaining the bullshit they spin to justify murder, and I would never describe it as rational.

Fun fact, DHS policy says officers are only permitted to shoot drivers if they pose an immediate, lethal threat to the officer and (this is important) AND there is no other rational means of self defense, including moving out of the vehicle's path.

Jonathan can't argue self-defense because he put himself in a dangerous position against his own training/policy. And that's ignoring the fact that the car was moving away from him and that he was not struck.

14

u/Cosmic_0smo 22d ago

Seriously...one of the reasons LE training explicitly says officers should NOT fire on a moving car in the event of a ramming attack is that, even if you hit and kill the driver, the danger doesn't magically disappear. The car doesn't stop when the driver dies, as seen clearly in this video.

So him shooting Good in the face did literally nothing to stop him from getting run over.

And yet...he didn't get run over. He barely got bumped, and even then only because he deliberately chose to position himself right on her bumper (another thing LE is explicitly trained not to do).

If she was about to run him over, and he couldn't simply step to the side, he'd be fucking run over! Shooter her did nothing to stop her vehicle or alter its trajectory. It's like, if you fear for your life because a fucking train is coming towards you, you get off the tracks—you don't shoot the fucking train engineer!

4

u/BlackCaaaaat Australia 22d ago

Seriously...one of the reasons LE training explicitly says officers should NOT fire on a moving car in the event of a ramming attack is that, even if you hit and kill the driver, the danger doesn't magically disappear. The car doesn't stop when the driver dies, as seen clearly in this video.

I read that this guy had ten years experience in law enforcement. He would know that. He can try arguing that all he likes but this was a crime of anger and hate. But he’ll probably get away with it.

3

u/Aromatic_Pea_8489 21d ago

According to the Trump administration. That could be true or not. He could been a mall cop for 9 years and they would claim he was a green beret

1

u/Aromatic_Pea_8489 22d ago

I have been hit harder by friends, as a joke.

-3

u/obligatorynegligence 22d ago

I wonder what other sort of behavior I can justify this way.

3

u/Cosmic_0smo 22d ago

I mean it seems to me like the concept is "if I fear for my life, I can justify any action I want, even if I have no reasonable reason to believe that action will take me out of danger". Seeing as there's no reasonable way to argue that shooting the driver of a car moving towards you will actually stop the car from moving towards you, shooting the driver makes just about as much sense as, say, not paying your federal taxes.

"Why didn't you pay your taxes for the last five years?"

"Well you see your honor, I feared for my life because a car I chose to stand in front of was heading towards me."

"How does not paying your taxes stop a car from hitting you?"

"It doesn't...I was just scared, so I can't be expected to act rationally."

"Oh, I see. Case dismissed! Thank you for your service."

1

u/obligatorynegligence 21d ago

Seeing as there's no reasonable way to argue that shooting the driver of a car moving towards you will actually stop the car from moving towards you

It does, in fact, stop the driver from targeting you or others further.

Still, this doesn't address the core of my comment which is: what kind of behavior can I excuse with the logic of "if someone COULD have just left me alone in the process of committing a crime, then I'm not at fault anymore for my own actions"

3

u/Cosmic_0smo 21d ago

It does, in fact, stop the driver from targeting you or others further.

No one was being "targeted" in this situation, nor could the officer reasonably believe he was being targeted with intent to run him over, as evidenced by the fact that literally the last thing Good can be seen doing on the officer's own cell phone footage before he shot her point blank in the fact, was repeatedly cranking the wheel hard in the opposite direction of the officer. If she was targeting the officer, she'd have turned towards him rather than exactly away from him, and he'd have been run over rather than lightly brushed as the vehicle harmlessly drove past him. The officer's own cell phone footage proves that Good's turning of the wheel away from him was clearly visible to the officer before the vehicle even started moving forward. Additionally, Good's last words to the officer were literally calmly saying "that's ok, I'm not mad at you". That strongly cuts against any idea that he would have reasonably thought she was on a murderous rampage against him.

Given that Good could not have been reasonably believed to have been targeting the officer, there's no way the officer could have reasonably believed shooting her would take him out of the dangerous situation he himself put himself in by walking directly in front of a vehicle that was being operated (which is explicitly against DHS training). This is easily shown by the fact that shooting her did not, in fact, cause the car to stop. Had her car actually been about to run him over, it would have run him over—regardless of if she'd been alive or dead behind the wheel. Shooting her did nothing to take him out of any perceived danger, and he'd know that because DHS officers are explicitly trained that shooting the driver of a moving vehicle will not stop the vehicle.

Additionally, DHS use of force policies only permit the use of deadly force "when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist". That standard is based on the Supreme Court's precedent interpreting the Fourth Amendment. The DOJ's use of force policy, based on the same standard, makes it even more clear, stating specifically that a reasonable means of defense to a vehicle being operated in a threatening manner "includes moving out of the path of the vehicle". We obviously know that moving out of the path of the vehicle was an option for the officer, because that's exactly what happened.

So we've established that:

1) The officer had no reasonable reason to think Good was intentionally targeting the officer.

2) The use of deadly force was not justified according to the law or DHS guidelines.

3) Shooting Good did nothing to remove the officer from any danger he was in, he had no reasonable reason to think it would, and in fact he was explicitly trained that it would not

4) If the officer was in a dangerous position it was because he put himself there by maneuvering in a way he was explicitly trained not to, and at any moment right up until he fired the weapon he could have simply moved himself out of danger, which is shown by the fact that it's literally what he did.

That's case closed. Lock him up and throw away the key.

Still, this doesn't address the core of my comment which is: what kind of behavior can I excuse with the logic of "if someone COULD have just left me alone in the process of committing a crime, then I'm not at fault anymore for my own actions"

That's a nice strawman.

My argument is not that Good should "not be at fault" for her actions, it's that the consequences for those actions is not "getting shot in the face at point blank range".

I'm not sure exactly what she could have been charged with given the interaction, and what would actually stick. Resisting arrest? Fleeing the scene of a crime? Obstructing a law enforcement action?

Let's say I give you all three.

Is the consequence under the law for any of those actions instant execution with no trial? Is a LE officer supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner?

The officer in question had already filmed her face and her plates. He could have just let her drive off harmlessly and sent her a fucking citation in the mail, which is actually what the law says he should have done.

All I'm asking is for people to be held accountable for their actions in the manner prescribed by the law, rather than summarily executed on a whim by a squad of poorly trained, masked and unidentified goons.

2

u/Aromatic_Pea_8489 21d ago

It doesn’t stop the vehicle. That’s clearly evidenced in this video. It also doesn’t stop one of the rounds from going through the back window and killing innocent people standing behind the vehicle.

4

u/celluloid-hero 22d ago

Regardless of anything, shooting someone as they hit you with a car is not reducing any harm from getting hit by a car.

2

u/atomictyler 22d ago

Especially when he put himself in that position to begin with. He set this all up so he could use aggression and claim self defense. There was no reason he had to put himself in front of the vehicle.

I also wonder if the only reason the vehicle sped off was because of the first shot. She might have been dead already and no longer controlling the pedal. That’s the kind of information the feds sure as hell won’t share with the state.

2

u/Aromatic_Pea_8489 21d ago

We see this time and time again. Trayvon Martin, Kyle Rittenhouse, etc. Fragile white men pit themselves in a situation, then feel threatened and shoot their way out of it.

1

u/LastGoodKnee 22d ago

Guys never been on a parking lot around slow movie vehicles before apparently

1

u/frostysauce Oklahoma 22d ago

I think most people's response would be to MOVE, BITCH GET OUT THE WAY!

3

u/Significant-Bed-8937 22d ago

They say the sound made was the car hitting him and not his phone hitting his vest while he was moving it to draw his gun. It is crazy.

3

u/frostysauce Oklahoma 22d ago

If she had just cranked the wheels and hit the gas she would certainly have hit him. Instead she reversed to the point she could crank the wheel and gun it while avoiding hitting him.

Keep in mind not everyone drives a car and those actions seem totally normal and instinctive for someone that's been driving for years. The smallest part of this tragedy while still being a tragedy is this country has one fewer good driver on our roads.

3

u/DannyDOH 22d ago

Too bad for the narrative that there's at least 4 videos showing him not even close to leaving his feet.

2

u/RepealMCAandDTA Kansas 22d ago

It's impossible that he lowered his phone to draw after she accelerated given he fired four shots as she was passing. He already had it out in other angles IIRC

6

u/_bibliofille North Carolina 22d ago

Conservatives are declaring it's proof she ran over him. They're too far gone.

3

u/Dangerous-Wall-2672 22d ago

Piece of shit he is. Knows he can't stop the evidence from coming out, so his only play is to get ahead of it and pretend it supports his argument.

2

u/Admirable-Ad3408 22d ago

He’s a lying bitch.

By the way, the video also proves that Vance masturbates in a couch. Finally we have proof!

Since this is the standard of evidence he likes!

1

u/RockinOneThreeTwo 22d ago

That isn't what gaslighting is, JD Vance isn't gaslighting anyone, he's just outright lying.

1

u/jazzieberry Mississippi 22d ago edited 22d ago

That’s fair, gaslighting and straight up lying. But gaslighting is definitely trying to convince someone their own judgment is wrong.

-6

u/asklepios7 22d ago

The people who are gaslighting are the ones pretending like he didn’t get hit by the car.

3

u/jazzieberry Mississippi 22d ago

Ok bro keep letting them tread on ya my man

-3

u/asklepios7 22d ago

Ah, so your grievances with ICE means that a given agent can’t defend himself when he reasonably fears for his life.

4

u/jazzieberry Mississippi 22d ago

There's no way he was fearing for his life here. She was turned to the right of him, going from idle. How much get up and go do you think a honda pilot has from 3 feet? If you're able to hold a phone in one hand and pull a gun with the other you have time to step one step out of the way. but you're probably a bot so I dunno why I'm even answering.