> BREAKING: The ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good in broad daylight has been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Minnesota Star Tribune. I think today is a great day for Johnathan to be indicted!
If anyone is wondering, it would still be a good day : )
First, your disrespectful lower casing of her name shows exactly who you are and what you are trying to do.
Second, no, she did not. We all have seen the videos from every angle. Jonathan Ross, the murderer, was not in danger.
I agree, the lack of accountability of ICE agents abusing their power and murdering US citizens is ridiculous.
Serious question - wtf is wrong with you?
> innocent people
I must have missed the trial where she was found guilty, when did that happen? Oh wait...
Either way, you're celebrating the extra-judicial execution of a citizen and think that's normal behavior. You sound like the violent person here.
I want a trial to know if this was a murder or a law enforcement action or self-defense. I should not be expected to decide PERSONALLY, I'm supposed to have a justice system that does that.
If this is all true, the officer might likely be acquitted at trial, as the only necessary justification for such force is that the officer have any reason to fear for their life.
But THERE SHOULD BE A TRIAL. What I have heard from those who have studied the available forensic evidence is that Renee Good never intended to do anything but drive away, which may or may not have been legal but is not (necessarily) attempted murder, nor alone cause for an instant death penalty.
There should be a trial if for no other reason than to clear the name of Renee Good, who you are accusing of a heinous crime
Frankly there are a lot of cops who need the death penalty for horrific abuse of their positions to rape and kill and yet just get juggled between departments instead, it's insane. And you're here whining about the obvious justified self defense for political reasons, it's stupid.
The fact is hitting the cop with her car is on video and she knew she was under arrest after spending the day blocking the road. You do not get to rewrite reality with your politically motivated desire for a trial.
> Jonathan Ross is the only person in that interaction that violently attacked someone resulting in death.
Yeah, because he killed her in justified self defense with pretty good aim in a snap situation might i add.
Replying in this edit due to HN rate limit (it's like 4 posts? crazy, can't even hold a conversation)
> But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee, who again you are not giving the presumption of innocence that I am at least giving the officer
I do not believe her intent was to attack, i believe she intended to escape regardless of whether she ran over the cop. I don't think there's a meaningful difference here. My presumption of innocence for rene good extends this far already but given she was looking directly at the cop who was directly in front of her car while slamming on the gas if i was on a theoretical jury in a theoretical trial for her, i would convict her. We do not have a higher standard available.
But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee
Jonathan Ross is the only person in that interaction that violently attacked someone resulting in death.
And that's before we consider the absurdity of making the names of federally-sanctioned killers private. They should all be wearing name tags and ID numbers.
And she didn't actually do what the agents claimed in their letter to her:
“This notice officially informs you that it is unlawful to threaten to assault, kidnap, and/or murder a federal official or that federal official’s immediate family member with the intent to impede, intimidate, and/or interfere with the federal official’s duties or retaliate against a federal official due to the performance of their duties."
She did none of the above. She only said "This is his name. Would be nice if he was indicted." That's not a threat - she's not in a position to indict him or sway a DA towards indictment. His family wasn't mentioned. There was no impeding of his work,
There is no conspiracy here.
But I'm at least grateful to live under a regime that needs to break its own laws to do this, and so such charges can be dismissed by courts that follow the law, even if they don't apply consequences to the offending officials. Compare that to the UK where more than 12k people were arrested for social media posts in 2023 alone and where it is fully permitted under the law with great discretion and supported by the courts.
It's a bit like "my husband is better than yours because he doesn't beat me as hard", but it's something.
If you make a bomb threat or threaten to kill someone else over social media, you really should get arrested and prosecuted because that isn't an exercise of "first amendment rights".
no repercussions from the government, yes, people should be free to write whatever they want
This isn't a "freespeach" argument, this is the actual text of the actual constitution. This is the actual literal reason that line is included in the bill of rights. It is explicit constitutional law that the government cannot punish you for criticizing the government.
There are a ton of exceptions to our right to free speech, but this is not one.
12K is just a ridiculous number and indicates that the UK indeed has a free speech problem. I don't think that in my country there were more like ~ 20 actual arrests over the same problem during the same period.
Even if you agree with prosecuting people for speech, why exactly would you arrest them and drag them to prison/jail? Even here in Europe, this is a sort of offense that usually results in a suspended sentence or a fine, and a physical arrest is absolutely unnecessary, unless there is a good suspicion that that person is going to harm some concrete people at a concrete time.
In a more liberal country, even if prosecution over an utterance takes place, it usually happens without arrests, simply by asking the culprit to come to a police station and explain themselves, later the same in front of a court. There just isn't any need for physical restraining of that person, it is just intimidation.
The States need to grow a pair and start arresting these agents who break the law.
It’s a big club, and we ain’t in it.
It’s called a Kavanaugh Stop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop
Meanwhile, the crook in charge keeps doing everything he can to keep his cronies rich, at the expense of the planet's climate. Those who voted for him continue to remain utterly uninformed of the tornadoes and floods they sow.