THe officer was hit with a lethal weapon subsequent to a citizen illegally obstructing him, refusing lawful orders, he suffered internal injuries and had recently been attacked in a similar scneario. — AmadeusD

That’s a cool narrative. Totally wrong, but cool. Carry on.

Its a description of the events which were filmed from multiple angles Mikie.

Can you at least see that you're not approaching this in good faith, given the sarcasm and dismissal? That's not meant to be combative - but I would expect a reduction in sarcasm and dismissiveness if you're not into Twitter-type exchanges, which is good.

I'm saying the facts are as described, but doesn't make it any "better" of an event - just, clearly not murder. The legalities are fairly clear given the multiple videos.

This is absolute bullshit for that reason. Also, the President didn't shoot her. LOL. — AmadeusD

Any federal police action should be reviewable by an internal affairs entity called an OPR. Word is that due to personnel cuts, there is presently no one to do the investigation. So some are demanding that the FBI do it. Meanwhile Noem and Trump are making statements that even Republicans are calling out as BS. A halfway decent president would just say the issue us being investigated by the FBI.

THe officer was hit with a lethal weapon subsequent to a citizen illegally obstructing him, refusing lawful orders, he suffered internal injuries and had recently been attacked in a similar scneario. — AmadeusD

Odd that you don't trust MSM, but you repeat a Trumpist version of the events, one that ignores established law and policy- and that is inconsistent with video evidence.

The ICE agent who killed Good unequivocally violated policy. The policy is to avoid putting oneself in the path of a vehicle, and whenever possible- to get out of the path if it's unexpected. This agent walked around the vehicle, passing by the front of it, and positioned near the front left bumper. Had Good wished to run him over, it would have been easy: turn the wheels toward him. She did the oppisite: she turned them away from him. The agent actually leaned in toward the vehicle, while recording his video - violating protocol. As she was turning, he seems to have been grazed, but not severely enough to even lose his footing (he's also on video walking briskly after his alleged injury; the injury was only said to entail "internal bleeding"; a bruise is internsl bleeding. There could be more, but without more information, there's no basis to assume the injury was severe).

He fired one shot, through the front windshield, perhaps he felt threatened*, but his next 2 shots were through the side window - when he was clearly not in danger of being hit. After this, he referred to her as a "f*cking bitch". Those 2 shots could not possibly be self-defense, and his attitude suggests anger. Every fact I've related is supported by the video I linked to (here again: https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ahcukffo7/) - it's a composite of all publicly available videos, time synchronized to help one see what was happening from different angles at each critical instant.

There's additional malfeasance. Right after the event, both Nohem and Trump publicly expressed their judgrment that Good was a "domestic terrorist" who intentionally tried to kill the agent. The proper response would have been to withhold judgement, pending an investigation. In fact, the DOJ has decided that an investigation is unnecessary (although they are investigating both the victim and her widow). A dozen DOJ attorneys promptly resigned after this.

* If the agent felt threatened, it was due to "officer created jeopardy": the legal term for positioning oneself in the potential path of a vehicle. Here's a reference to a general discussion of this: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17sCTa9bpJ/ Nevertheless, he could plead self-defense in court, and perhaps rationalize where he stood when he took the first shot. This may be sufficient to establish reasonable doubt for a criminal acquital- but this applies solely to the first shot. He was not in the vehicle path when he took the 2nd and 3rd shots. If one of those was the fatal shot, then he has no viable self-defense claim.

The DOJ and border security guidance is discussed here: https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1GBYXBWKWy/

The notion (expressed by many Trump supporters) that it's fine to shoot a criminal trying to escape is contrary to US law. There's a 1975 Supreme Court ruling on this: Tennessee v Garner (link).

More recently, the Supreme Court ruled (Barnes v Felix) that "An officer cannot manufacture a threat by placing themselves in harm’s way like jumping in front of a car trying to get away and then claim self‑defense just because the car moves toward them." In Good's case, the agent leaned in. It's very obvious in the video.

If you choose to respond, I ask that you at least watch the composite video. If you're going to challenge what I said about law or policy, read those links.

Excellent synopsis — so of course you either (1) misunderstood, (2) are approaching in bad faith, (3) are being emotional, or (4) have an unseen liberal bias thanks to your consumption of “mainstream media.” Fortunately the guy repeating Kristi Noem talking points is here set you straight.

He fired one shot, through the front windshield, perhaps he felt threatened*, but his next 2 shots were through the side window - when he was clearly not in danger of being hit. After this, he referred to her as a "f*cking bitch". Those 2 shots could not possibly be self-defense, and his attitude suggests anger. — Relativist

There’s is no doubt that he was pissed off and looking for a reason to shoot. Standing in the way of a car gives the perfect pretext to do so— “she was trying to run me over!” No, she wasn’t. She shouldn’t have driven away, no doubt. But she turned the wheel to AVOID him. But as I said before, the consequence isn’t death.

So once again another murderer walks free because of bullshit reasons. Or as the totally objective “I’m left of center but” Trump-lite crowd would say: natural causes.

With this, I fully agree. But the videos are clear. I can't understand why you'd need one. Its clear.

Odd that you don't trust MSM, but you repeat a Trumpist version of the events, one that ignores established law and policy- and that is inconsistent with video evidence. — Relativist

I cannot have a discussion with someone who is this incapable of watching a video.

Those 2 shots could not possibly be self-defense, and his attitude suggests anger. — Relativist

False, and this is the exact kind of emotional over-reaction that is going to have all of you crying into your soup while the law does its thing. I shouldn't really care, but I like talking to you guys. This is absolute nonsense. As someone who reads case law for a living, I am just stumped as to the ignorance shown toward this event. Its astounding.

The agent actually leaned in toward the vehicle — Relativist

I cannot fathom being so beyond rational assessment as to say something like this, having seen the videos. I'll see myself out.

With this, I fully agree. But the videos are clear. I can't understand why you'd need one. Its clear. — AmadeusD

Such situations should not be judged by the public based on videos. An internal affairs type investigation should take place. When the president publicly pushes back on the idea of an investigation, it's bad joo joo.

I cannot have a discussion with someone who is this incapable of watching a video. — AmadeusD

You brought no video to my attention, but I brought one to yours. Did you watch it? It doesn't seem so.

The agent actually leaned in toward the vehicle
— Relativist

I cannot fathom being so beyond rational assessment as to say something like this, having seen the videos. I'll see myself out. — AmadeusD

It's very obvious in the video I linked to. You should have watched it before jumping to conclusions.

Those 2 shots could not possibly be self-defense, and his attitude suggests anger.
— Relativist

False, and this is the exact kind of emotional over-reaction that is going to have all of you crying into your soup while the law does its thing. — AmadeusD

Emotion? I've examined the evidence, the law, departmental policy- and the history that led to that policy. You have responded to none of the specific points I made, but even so - I'm willing to consider any analysis you care to present. So far, you have given none to me - you've simply attacked me and ignored the information I gave. In particular, I'm very curious how you would argue for self-defense when he is on the side of the vehicle, not in the path, and he is firing into the side window. You should explain this in light of the departmental policy that he violated, and in light of the "reasonable officer" standard, as alluded to in Barnes v Felix (2025). I pointed you at all the relevant information.

you either (1) misunderstood, (2) are approaching in bad faith, (3) are being emotional, or (4) have an unseen liberal bias thanks to your consumption of “mainstream media.” — Mikie

So add to this being “incapable of interpreting the video the same way as I do.”

You’re of course exactly right, and it’s obvious from the video. But when dealing with emotional Trumpers, don’t expect a good faith conversation. Just the usual post hoc justification — or in this case, lashing out and running away. Not a single point you brought up was refuted, just lazy ad hominems about your rationality.

A good Rorschach test of political bias, this is. They’re so in their bubble that to them this is all as obvious as gravity, and to contradict their “objective truth” is as shocking as to question gravity. Amazing to witness.

I believe Amadeus is an Australian lawyer. I'd be very happy to see a legal analysis (based on US law) that supports his position - and that's because I have not encountered one up to now. I've read several legal analyses by respected analysts in the US, and none support the agent's action as legal. It's kinda funny that in our interaction on this, I'm the only one who presented facts - with backup, and all he did was attack me. Not a good look for a lawyer.

If you watch the officer who fired the shots, he can be seen, reaching for his gun before the car moved. While he could see clearly that the victim was turning the steering wheel as far to the right as it would go. Demonstrating that she was intending to pull away to the right, away from the officer. He pulled the gun and fired in one movement in a split second. There was no hesitation, or warning given. The gun wasn’t shown to the victim to indicate that it might be used if she accelerated forwards. As he fired, he leaned into the car to make it look as though he was being hit by the car.
He had decided to kill the victim when he realised that she was going to attempt to drive away, rather than exist the vehicle. A few seconds before conducting the murder, which is why he remained in front of the vehicle, so that he could lean into it as it moved towards him. So he could claim she was attempting to run him down. This was premeditated murder.

Immediately after the killing, the President labelled the victim a "domestic terrorist", and blocked a complete investigation. — Relativist

Protesters are domestic terrorists. That looks similar to what the regime in Iran would say.

What most concerns me is the fact that a large segment of the US population thinks it was perfectly fine to execute her because she violated the law. There is an absence of commitment to due process. — Relativist

Look at those poor drug runners, blown up in their boats. Since when is 'shoot on sight' the strategy for dealing with cocaine traffickers? Oh I forgot, they're not cocaine traffickers, they are "unlawful combatants" in "a non-international armed conflict" with the USA. I suppose, "non-international" makes them domestic terrorists so 'shoot on sight' is warranted.

It's kinda funny that in our interaction on this, I'm the only one who presented facts - with backup, and all he did was attack me. Not a good look for a lawyer. — Relativist

Indeed.

He pulled the gun and fired in one movement in a split second. There was no hesitation, or warning given. The gun wasn’t shown to the victim to indicate that it might be used if she accelerated forwards. — Punshhh

Good point.

Protesters are domestic terrorists. That looks similar to what the regime in Iran would say. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But the bullshit pretext would be easy to see, given it’s Iran. But if Trump says Good was a domestic terrorist hellbent on running officers over— then it gets taken as fact, despite the video evidence.

But the bullshit pretext would be easy to see, given it’s Iran. But if Trump says Good was a domestic terrorist hellbent on running officers over— then it gets taken as fact, despite the video evidence. — Mikie

I see the point. If thousands of protesters are being shot, then the "bullshit pretext" is easily seen. If it's just the odd one here and there, it's easily hidden, though the pretext is the same bullshit. And the intended effect, intimidation, is very similar.

Morning guys (my time) - I have to say, I am disappointed in my response earlier. Not conceptually, but I was rushing to leave work and I did not take the time I shoul dhave to respond to , specifically, Metaphysician's comments and it's come off extremely badly, even by my lights.

My overall take is the same, but it was a lazy, unsupported response. I'll get to a more substantive response today but i apologise for what appears to be an essentially useless response.

The only thing I want to add here is that the number of "lies" swirling around ICE, Trump, the overall situation and about Good, her wife, ICE, Trump and the overall situation from what would be termed 'the other side' are pretty clear.

It's hard to know what to do in those situations. Anyway, I apologise for that repsonse. I'll fix it up later today.

As the Trump administration oversees the sale of Venezuela's petroleum worldwide, Senate Democrats are questioning who is benefitting from the contracts.

In one of the first transactions, the U.S. granted Vitol, the world's largest independent oil broker, a license worth roughly $250 million. A senior partner at Vitol, John Addison, gave roughly $6 million to Trump-aligned political action committees during the presidential election, according to donation records compiled by OpenSecrets. — Stephen Groves, The Associated Press

It does look very much like the agent put himself in a position that would provide an excuse to kill her, if she moved. Of course, we can't read his mind. He could argue that he took out his gun to seek her submission. However, by putting himself in the vehicle's path, he violated dept policy. This facebook post of mine shows his position and lists the policy.

Worse still, the Supreme Court case Barnes v. Felix ruled that, "An officer cannot manufacture a threat by placing themselves in harm’s way like jumping in front of a car trying to get away and then claim self‑defense just because the car moves toward them.".

These factors may, or may not, be sufficient for a criminal conviction. But a civil judgement, from a lawsuit, looks like a slam dunk.

Trump's action, giving him control of this money, is unConstitutional. The Constitution gives Congress the sole right to allocate funds. In a fair world, Trump would be impeached and removed from office for this. But partisanship rules, and the net result is near-dictatorial power.

Trump's action, giving him control of this money, is unConstitutional. The Constitution gives Congress the sole right to allocate funds. In a fair world, Trump would be impeached and removed from office for this. But partisanship rules, and the net result is near-dictatorial power. — Relativist

And what do you think happens if after the Midterms Trump and the GOP would lose both the House and the Senate majorities? It is a possibility.

Still, impeachment needs a majority in House and in the Senate a 2/3 majority. Now there's 35 seats in the Senate in election and those 65 that don't have elections 35 are Dems and 31 GOP. So if the GOP get only 10 Senate seats and the Dems (or people willing to impeach Trump) 25, that makes in my arithmetic 60 seats, which is the 2/3 majority. But then, even if the Dems don't get the 2/3 majority, still the GOP senators can see the writing on the wall and do what they would have done to Nixon.

That's why Trump isn't so keen to have the midterms.

And any, even the Venezuela thing hasn't come to an end.

I admire, and envy, your optimism. IMO, the liklihood of Trump being impeached, and removed, is maybe 5%.

But...I looked at the KASHI betting site, which has a pretty good track record at making predictions. I was surprised to see that 39% of bets have him leaving office before his term is up. This would include impeachment/removal as well as death, or incapacitating health issue. I focus all my prayers* on him leaving office early, but in good health (it's inappropriate to wish harm to anyone. Kash may be watching).

*BTW, I'm an atheist.

I admire, and envy, your optimism. IMO, the liklihood of Trump being impeached, and removed, is maybe 5%. — Relativist

If Trump would be just an ordinary president, it would be after all 5% (or well, with an ordinary prez I guess the percentage would be 0,05%), but he's not. Greenland, Minneapolis, mocking the NATO members in Afghanistan... it's not going to end there.

I think in reality Trump getting impeached or being sidelined is about 11%. Him dying (of natural causes) is more like 20%. Alzheimers runs in the family. All those tests he brags of doing tells something real.

In reality, there may also be the "Biden moment", when he is just put aside when he is totally incapable of ruling. If the Dems did it to Biden, it can indeed happen to Trump. He just needs to be in a worse condition.

In fact,

My little country which thinks it's a good democracy had an experience of this. A President that had basically destroyed the opposition and had the backing of the Soviet Union, simply got too old and demented. And then it wasn't great political drama, but a small announcement that he has retired for health reason. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

(Last moments of Urho Kekkonen as the President of Finland, here assisted by the Iceland's President, Vigdis Finbogadóttir and his Finnish army adjutant in August 1981 in Iceland, next month the president "took" sick leave and then died in 1986.)


Trump's health simply going down is a real possibility. If Alzheimer takes hold, then the "ouster" is quick and easy.