To wonder if past trauma was a factor in the Renee Nicole Good murder and that, while not absolving agent, it shows ICE should select agents more carefully?

[Carla786]

Reading this from the BBC, I wonder if the agent was suffering from previous trauma. They had earlier been in the Iraq War and then had huge number of stitches after being dragged by a car while arresting apparently a 'child sex offender' illicit migrant last March.

Thus I wonder if, because Renee Good clipped them with the car earlier(as The Times indicates), shooting at her car as she drove past was less a rational decision borne from evil and more an instinctive reaction from recent trauma with cars on the job?

This is NOT an excuse. But I wonder if it also shows that ICE are selecting traumatised agents who are too dangerous, due to this, to be in that position?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdx4qd4d16no

The ruling was on the 8th of January, so it’s understandable if you have missed it.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-1239/336894/20250108173331795_Barnes%20Reply%201-8-25%20-%20Final.pdf

It talks about things like to totality of circumstances, so they have to look at the whole picture including the officers actions when leading up to the moment he used forced. What did he do, and did he endanger himself? They cannot just look at the moment when the car drives at him.
Also, officer created jeopardy. Did the officer put himself into the position which then created the threat… like by standing in front of a vehicle still being controlled by a suspect.

The officer acted in a way that they are not allowed to act, creating his own danger and putting himself into the position that created a threat to himself. He cannot do that and claim self defence.

She was carrying a knife. She also ignored multiple warnings to stop as she forced her way into a secure government building.

She (to use a phrase you may recognise) "fucked about and found out". She was an actual domestic terrorist, along with the rest of the mob who ransacked the Capitol.

It's also worth noting that a full investigation took place by both the local police and the federal government and Lieutenant Byrd was cleared. Somewhat different to having Kristie Noem tell a stream of lies at a press conference within minutes and JD Vance claiming that Ross has "absolute immunity". There is no chance that the federal government will investigate this properly, and they've taken the unusual step of excluding state and city law enforcement from the investigation.

You should see the other three threads about the murder. People wonder about how the Nazis came to power in Germany, this is just the same.

I suggest you look up Barnes v Felix.

An officer cannot use officer created jeporday, i.e., stepping in front of a moving vehicle, to legitimize the use of deadly force.

Maybe, but it doesn't matter. Whilst she didn't deserve to die, her actions led to the outcome.

@RingoJuice

Just one part of it, but shows you the point being made that you seem unaware of with regards to Supreme Court rulings. They text is spread across a page break so you’ll need to click on the image to see the full thing.

You are literally proving this poster's point with your pretzel logic justifying this warped morality.

When he fired his second and third shots, there was no way that he reasonably believed his life to be in danger.

If it is such an open and shut case then why are the administration doing everything they can to frustrate a full and objective investigation?

"her actions"?

Yes, actions and decisions.

Oh, your one of those are you!

It's my opinion. There's really no need to be rude.

You're not "your".

His actions also caused this. But he was acting outside of his training, outside of guidelines and outside of a Supreme Court ruling.

He cannot do what he did; he cannot use self defence as his justification when he stepped in front of a car and created the danger to his life or heath. They are not allowed to do that.

She’d be alive if she never protested. She would also be alive if he had acted according to his job role, and according the training and according to the law. If he hadn’t placed himself in front of a vehicle still in control by the “suspect.” Difference is, he was in the position of power with the gun which makes him the aggressor (according to the Supreme Court). So he can’t claim self defence, which makes it murder.

How does this change the bottom line of reasonable belief in imminent death or injury? I am not going to read it now but appreciate the link and will do later 👍

It doesn’t seem to be an actual decision issued by SCOTUS though. Just that the lower court should now consider these other factors. The family can still be ruled against (and probably will be, in all honesty).

No, it was decided that lower courts have to hear those factors. It doesn’t override the standard of whether he was at imminent risk of death or serious injury

It changes the bottom line because officers cannot deliberately place themselves into an obvious danger and then go, “hey, they’re putting my in danger so I can kill them.”

He put himself into that position, again training and guidance, and then shot her while claiming self defence. He created the situation where he was in danger by acting against rules and training.

If you don’t or can’t understand this then I’m sorry but I don’t know how else to explain it to you. This comes down to you not understanding and simply being wrong because of that.

Framing state violence as rational, logical, justified and even desirable has historically been a deliberate tactic used to establish and maintain control in fascist and other totalitarian systems.

That’s exactly the language we’re seeing on these threads defending the ICE agent’s murderous actions. It's an attempt to dress up the state murder of dissenting citizens as rational justified and moral.

By framing violent state actions as the inevitable, rational outcome, MAGA posters promote a mechanistic logic that replaces moral responsibility and human compassion with an ice (no pun) cold justification for state brutality.

x.com/EdKrassen/status/2010689595994755343

Ed Krassenstein

@EdKrassen

BREAKING: ICE agents rammed this United States Marine veteran’s car and put her through torture just because she was following them from a safe distance. “they said ‘have you not learned: this is why we killed that lesbian bitch’”

That pic of Krassenstein not meant to be there

We went through this on the other thread.

ICE are taking people into custody who are ALREADY IN JAIL SERVING TIME, taking them to the border, and setting them free.

So murderers/rapists/child molesters, who are where they should be, in jail, are having their sentences commuted by ICE, set free in their own countries, and told " don't come back".

Oh, and these folk in jail already have deportation orders, and will be deported when their sentences are served. Many of them are on very long sentences.

Murderer with another ten more years to serve ? No worry. Just phone ICE. They will have you out free in a week.

Supreme Court just decided that the split second frame was too narrow. Not that stepping in front of a vehicle (which he didn’t do anyway) forfeits any claim to self defense.

It doesn’t supersede what I said, but does mean other factors can be considered

And here we have it - as a pp said it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Please link to such a case. Would be interested to read it

It's also debatable that he was in any danger at all, given that shooting at moving vehicle can't change it's trajectory, had he been in any danger the car would have moved forwards past where he was standing (which also, arguably was not in front but slightly off to the side given that the bullet entered the bottom corner of the windscreen). The car did not move in that direction, in carried on in the direction it had been pointing, which was away from JR and down the street.