Babbitt was armed with a knife and got her face blown off for trying to climb through a shattered window beside a barricaded door into the House Speaker's Lobby.
Renee Nicole Macklin Good was an unarmed citizen trying to drive away from an ICE agent in her own vehicle on a public street.
Thanks for bringing up this valuable comparison.
She hit the gas when an ICE hero was in front of her car. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Sounds like ICE idiot should have been trained not to stand in front of cars in roads. My three year old nephew knows to look both ways.
She hit the gas when an ICE hero was in front of her car. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Sounds like ICE idiot should have been trained not to stand in front of cars in roads. My three year old nephew knows to look both ways.
Also in Minnesota: Male ICE agents are forcing apprehended woman into Porta-Pottys and then letting them go. Of course, Putin's MAGAs will defend his right to a happy ending.
you need to explain why he shot through the side window after all threats to him had passed.
without that, you are just spitting in the wind.
Shooting a driver headed at you is a way to guaranteed getting run over by an out-of-control car. 0 to 50 mph is less than one second, according to Putin's MAGGATS.
Sounds like ICE idiot should have been trained not to stand in front of cars in roads. My three year old nephew knows to look both ways.
Sounds like...
Department of Justice’s use-of-force policy makes it explicit that officers should not shoot at a vehicle if they can protect themselves by “moving out of the path of the vehicle.”
Pushing for cheap oil instead of investing in renewable energy is a long term mess if we want to have a lot of energy to power AI in the future.
talking about taking control of Greenland is not going to help in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. NATO will be severely hurt if the US takes actions to take control of Greenland and Ukraine cannot feel secure about any security guarantees the US offers if the US feels fine with taking over another area.
you need to explain why he shot through the side window after all threats to him had passed.
without that, you are just spitting in the wind.
Shooting a driver headed at you is a way to guaranteed getting run over by an out-of-control car. 0 to 50 mph is less than one second, according to Putin's MAGGATS.
The FIRST bullet went through the front windshield and most likely was the kill shot.
As for the other shots, the ICE agents were doing what they were trained to do, eliminate the threat to their fellow team member.
The woman FAFO'd. Her fault. Deal with it.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Shooting a driver headed at you is a way to guaranteed getting run over by an out-of-control car. 0 to 50 mph is less than one second, according to Putin's MAGGATS.
The FIRST bullet went through the front windshield and most likely was the kill shot.
As for the other shots, the ICE agents were doing what they trained to do, eliminate the threat to their fellow team member.
The woman FAFO'd. Her fault. Deal with it.
I’ll put you in touch with her son so you can explain it to him.
Shooting a driver headed at you is a way to guaranteed getting run over by an out-of-control car. 0 to 50 mph is less than one second, according to Putin's MAGGATS.
The FIRST bullet went through the front windshield and most likely was the kill shot.
As for the other shots, the ICE agents were doing what they were trained to do, eliminate the threat to their fellow team member.
Shooting a driver headed at you is a way to guaranteed getting run over by an out-of-control car. 0 to 50 mph is less than one second, according to Putin's MAGGATS.
The FIRST bullet went through the front windshield and most likely was the kill shot.
You have no basis to conclude that. You'd need a full investigation and report, including autopsy and analysis of the first bullet trajectory to determine that. (It appears that the government is not going to do such an investigation or report.)
I'm also not sure your unsupported conclusion -- "most likely the kill shot" -- makes much of a difference one way or the other either when judging whether the first shot was reasonable and/or justified.
As for the other shots, the ICE agents were doing what they were trained to do, eliminate the threat to their fellow team member.
If this matter gets to that inquiry about the justification or reasonableness of the additional shots (2nd and 3rd) through the side window, the ICE and/or the agent would have a much tougher time showing the agent was "eliminat[ing] the threat to their fellow team member" or that he was trained to take those subsequent shots. I haven't seen any videos that show any ICE agents, or anyone at all, in front of the vehicle at the time of the second shot. Everyone was standing back to the side or rear of the vehicle, even the officer who shot the protestor. All the videos show that the ICE agent was shooting into a fleeing vehicle from the side at that point. I can't imagine any law enforcement agency allows officers to shoot fleeing vehicles from the side or rear. (Some agencies don't even permit chasing of the vehicle, because it increases danger to the public.) Keep in mind this is a busy residential street in the middle of the day. Extreme caution with firearms would be the policy in such a situation. I really doubt it's ICE agency policy to shoot fleeing vehicles when no one is in the path of the vehicle.
But we'll likely never know. This shooting is probably the first law enforcement shooting in the history of US law enforcement that won't be investigated.
The FIRST bullet went through the front windshield and most likely was the kill shot.
You have no basis to conclude that. You'd need a full investigation and report, including autopsy and analysis of the first bullet trajectory to determine that. (It appears that the government is not going to do such an investigation or report.)
I'm also not sure your unsupported conclusion -- "most likely the kill shot" -- makes much of a difference one way or the other either when judging whether the first shot was reasonable and/or justified.
As for the other shots, the ICE agents were doing what they were trained to do, eliminate the threat to their fellow team member.
If this matter gets to that inquiry about the justification or reasonableness of the additional shots (2nd and 3rd) through the side window, the ICE and/or the agent would have a much tougher time showing the agent was "eliminat[ing] the threat to their fellow team member" or that he was trained to take those subsequent shots. I haven't seen any videos that show any ICE agents, or anyone at all, in front of the vehicle at the time of the second shot. Everyone was standing back to the side or rear of the vehicle, even the officer who shot the protestor. All the videos show that the ICE agent was shooting into a fleeing vehicle from the side at that point. I can't imagine any law enforcement agency allows officers to shoot fleeing vehicles from the side or rear. (Some agencies don't even permit chasing of the vehicle, because it increases danger to the public.) Keep in mind this is a busy residential street in the middle of the day. Extreme caution with firearms would be the policy in such a situation. I really doubt it's ICE agency policy to shoot fleeing vehicles when no one is in the path of the vehicle.
But we'll likely never know. This shooting is probably the first law enforcement shooting in the history of US law enforcement that won't be investigated.
Agree. And two other things:
- The guy who the government claims was protecting himself, other agents, and the public, guaranteed that that there was an unguided chuck of steal rumbling through a residential neighborhood in the middle of the day. Very lucky that it didn’t hit anybody.
- Loser Gary just wanted to feel cool by writing “kill shot.”
And given what we know of where the 3 shots were taken from (2 and/or 3 being nearly point blank from the side), and the relatively low position of the bullet hole, the first shot would seem to be the least likely to have been fatal.
The FIRST bullet went through the front windshield and most likely was the kill shot.
You have no basis to conclude that. You'd need a full investigation and report, including autopsy and analysis of the first bullet trajectory to determine that. (It appears that the government is not going to do such an investigation or report.)
I'm also not sure your unsupported conclusion -- "most likely the kill shot" -- makes much of a difference one way or the other either when judging whether the first shot was reasonable and/or justified.
As for the other shots, the ICE agents were doing what they were trained to do, eliminate the threat to their fellow team member.
If this matter gets to that inquiry about the justification or reasonableness of the additional shots (2nd and 3rd) through the side window, the ICE and/or the agent would have a much tougher time showing the agent was "eliminat[ing] the threat to their fellow team member" or that he was trained to take those subsequent shots. I haven't seen any videos that show any ICE agents, or anyone at all, in front of the vehicle at the time of the second shot. Everyone was standing back to the side or rear of the vehicle, even the officer who shot the protestor. All the videos show that the ICE agent was shooting into a fleeing vehicle from the side at that point. I can't imagine any law enforcement agency allows officers to shoot fleeing vehicles from the side or rear. (Some agencies don't even permit chasing of the vehicle, because it increases danger to the public.) Keep in mind this is a busy residential street in the middle of the day. Extreme caution with firearms would be the policy in such a situation. I really doubt it's ICE agency policy to shoot fleeing vehicles when no one is in the path of the vehicle.
But we'll likely never know. This shooting is probably the first law enforcement shooting in the history of US law enforcement that won't be investigated.
If your prediction turns out to be true, and unfortunately, that seems quite likely, imagine being her family? Loved one killed, tons of evidence to show that the actions weren’t unambiguously justified, no eventual punishment, AND NOT EVEN AN INVESTIGATION. Unreal.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.