Ice Agent suffered internal bleeding

ICE agent involved in the Minnesota death, was treated for internal bleeding; bleeding. This from CBS news:

The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who fatally shot Renee Good last week in Minneapolis, Jonathan Ross, suffered internal bleeding to the torso following the incident, according to two U.S. officials briefed on his medical condition.

It was unclear how extensive the bleeding was. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Ross' injury, but has not yet responded to CBS News' requests for more information. This story will be updated as we learn more.

……

No doubt this story will evolve and the injury seems relatively minor at this point. But it does appear to resolve one issue, he was hit by the vehicle.

Part of the lesson of this story is wait a few days before going bat shit.

That is good news. However, I suspect it is false, fabricated BS. I heard CBS is now the voice of Oracle's Loopy Larry.

Haemorrhoids

Mary had a lil lamb ........

You miss the point….regardless of how serious the injury was, the claim that the agent wasn’t hit by the car has been debunked.

bullshit&youknowit .... probably relates to his incident weeks earlier.

I don’t know and nor do you. And nor do the media who have reported it as a straight story. I’m sure more details will emerge, but it seems unlikely he wasn’t struck by the car. That would be perjury and subject to criminal and civil legal action.

Interesting development

What is ahappening in Minnesota is standard riotous conduct organized by the Democratic Party terrorist subsidiairies BLM and Antifa, The riotous conduct is happening through use of imported rioters from other states.

In Minisota the situation is used to help taking the massive level pf coprruption is also extremely embarassing for the local Democat leadership unde cover and everything possible is being done to hide the real situation of corrupt administration near to $10 billion through riots,

So many videos available online of police incidents, yet people still don't get that not complying with armed law enforcement is probably going to end in a bad day for you. Another totally avoidable tragedy - act sensibly, no one gets shot.

Drive your vehicle while there's an armed officer in the way though, well, stupid games and stupid prizes because you just don't know who is in front of you, what their state of mind is in that moment and what they're capable of doing, not to mention that it's assault at the very least. There comes a point in these sequences where you put your hands up and say "okay, I'm turning off my vehicle, I've made my little stupid stand achieving fuck knows what, let the law take its course now" instead of escalating and agitating until you're at a point where you're bumping armed officers out of the way with your vehicle.

because you just don't know who is in front of you, what their state of mind is in that moment and what they're capable of doing

Precisely

And in this specific case it was an officer who just 6 months prior had been dragged along quite a distance by a vehicle, which required hospitilisation.

Now I see that some of the family of this woman that was killed have now also come forward and said that they do not blame the ICE agent, they say that she should not have been there to begin with.

I honestly struggle to understand how this shooting can be justified. From what we can see, this woman was told to get out of her car. She panicked, reversed, and drove off.

In doing so, she bumped one of the officers with her car. Yes, a car can be dangerous, nobody denies that. But the officer did not die. His injuries were not serious. He went to hospital and survived.

The woman, however, was shot three times, hit twice, and killed. And the ICE agents saying good " The fucking Bitch".

She was an American citizen, and this was not even an immigration case, which already raises questions about why ICE was involved in the first place.

The video does not clearly show the exact moment she was shot, which makes it even harder to accept what happened. At the end of the day, a woman is dead because she tried to drive away.

What I do not understand is this: in the same country, real murderers, rapists, and violent criminals are often arrested, charged, and taken to court.

Some of them also resist, far more violent than this women.

They are not shot dead on the spot. The normal and correct process should be to stop the person, arrest them, lock them up, and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

Instead, we now have a situation where an officer is alive with minor injuries, and a woman is dead.

Saying the officer “felt threatened” cannot mean police are allowed to shoot and kill someone every time a person panics, resists, or tries to flee.

Just put yourself in that situation. How do you know that you will act 100% correctly?? You might be nervous, scared or just feeling a bit off that day...And that gives the right to this so called "officer of the Law" to fucking shoot you dead?? I say Bull Shit!

She was not a dangerous criminal, terrorist or some lunatic. She is a family member, mother and a friend not deserving this treatment.

There has to be a clear difference between stopping someone and killing them. In this case, the officer is alive, and the woman is dead. And that should simply not sit right with any Human being.

Dead people cannot be arrested, questioned, or judged in court. Once a life is taken, there is no way to undo it.

That is why this whole situation is fucked up and shows the lack of respect for life by the " so called Law" that is there primarily to protect us, not kill us.

Donald Trump's reaction about this shooting and other issue's, points more and more that this old relic is a dictator not a caring leader.

Manpower

I struggle to understand what you wrote above, Is it from a newspaper report?

I honestly struggle to understand how this shooting can be justified.

So do I. It gets clearer though when you learn, as DA pointed out, that this officer was seriously injured the previous summer after being dragged by the car of a fleeing suspect. Now imagine that still fresh in your mind, and here's another vehicle making a run at you.

Saying the officer “felt threatened” cannot mean police are allowed to shoot and kill someone every time a person panics, resists, or tries to flee.

MP, I will never presume to speak for police officers or pretend to know how they feel, but the above will explain why the officer would have felt threatened. But besides that, it's a thankless job that tears at your psyche, even more reason not to fuck with them because they get fucked with 24/7 on the job they do and many of them are probably walking around at a permanent breaking point. They've probably been injured themselves, they've maybe seen their partners get injured or killed by hesitating, who knows. So when they tell you to get out of your vehicle, get out. If it's wrongful, you can take recourse to the law and live to fight another day. Non-compliance gets you absolutely nowhere except in even deeper shit.

Just put yourself in that situation. How do you know that you will act 100% correctly??

I wouldn't put myself in such a dumbass situation precisely because of the risk involved. The most guilty party here is Good's wife who shouted at her to "drive". Imagine urging your partner to run from the police. These people are idiots playing games while thinking consequences don't exist.

...and that's why the law takes into account that its not about what you know what you were doing but rather what you made the other person believe you were doing and if your actions made them feel threatened.

All that is required is a reasonable suspicion that your life is in danger. That's it.

She did bump the guy and he is well within reason to suspect that she wants to do more harm. How does he know she isn't gonna reverse over him once she knocks him down? He doesn't know that. Nobody does, until it happens.

Nobody is always privy to all the facts, particularly not a a highly charged and dynamic situation. Expecting law enforcement to act with exactly the right amount of force for every situation is a bridge too far. They are not psychics. That is why it is so important that you follow orders when they are given. It allows law enforcement to take control of the situation, which is what we pay them to do, and massively reduces the chances of them feeling like you are threatening them. Had she got out of her car on any of the many opportunities she had to do so, she would still be sucking air today.

I hear what you’re saying Pakie, but I still don’t buy the reasoning. Ok, the officer was badly injured in a previous incident.

Past bad experiences does not give an officer a free pass to kill someone in a new situation.

Police in the US are clearly trigger happy red necks, itching to pull the trigger. The ICE officers comment " The Fucking Bitch" says it all.

Off course it's made easier for them, when you have old Dictators like Trump pushing a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality, then this is exactly what happens.

As far as I know even in a fucked up Corrupt South Africa, we don’t see police shooting civilians dead left, right and centre during traffic or compliance situations. It happens sometimes during serious criminal chases, yes, but not like this.

This kind of shit happens predominantly in America. These officers are not untrained civilians. They choose this job.

They go through extensive training, mental evaluations, scenario training, and repeated drills specifically for these high stress situations. This is the whole point of training.

If someone panics, reacts badly, or makes a stupid decision, the officer is supposed to handle it better, not worse.

Saying “he felt threatened” is not a justification. Feeling threatened does not give him the right pulling a trigger. If an officer cannot control himself in a chaotic situation, then he should not be wearing a fucking badge and carrying a gun in the first place!

That is not harsh, that is common sense.

This woman was not a violent criminal, not a murderer, not a rapist, not a terrorist. She was a woman sitting in a car who panicked and tried to drive away.

Even if she bumped the officer, that still does not justify unloading bullets into her. There were other options. Shooting should not have been the first reaction!

The argument that policing is a “thankless, stressful job” is weak. Lots of jobs are stressful. That does not give anyone the right to kill someone.

If the job breaks you mentally, then you step away from it.

You don’t take it out on civilians.

Yes, non compliance is stupid. Yes, it makes things worse. But again, police are trained to deal with non compliance stressful situations.

That is literally their job. You cannot say “don’t mess with police because they are at breaking point” and then excuse lethal force when they lose control. That's flawed thinking.

We see plenty of cases where police deal with far more violent suspects, even ones who stab officers, and they still manage to arrest them without killing them.

So don’t tell me this was unavoidable. This comes down to the officer’s judgment, and that judgment failed miserably.

At the end of the day, the officer is alive, and a woman is dead. She should have been arrested, jailed, and prosecuted. That is how the law is supposed to work.

Shooting her dead solved nothing. It only removed her right to face justice and took a life that is gone and cannot come back.

In my opinion, you can spin it however you want, but this officer reacted wrongly.

If he cannot handle situations like this, then he should not be in this Fucking job. Case closed.

In doing so, she bumped one of the officers with her car. Yes, a car can be dangerous, nobody denies that. But the officer did not die. His injuries were not serious. He went to hospital and survived.

1. He could have died, that's the point.

The woman, however, was shot three times, hit twice, and killed. And the ICE agents saying good " The fucking Bitch".

1. When you have a reasonable suspicion that your life may be in danger then you are allowed reasonable force...however nasty it turns out.

She was an American citizen, and this was not even an immigration case, which already raises questions about why ICE was involved in the first place.

1. They were not there for her, were they? And it doesn't matter if she was a Martian or from Texas, the same self-defence laws apply.

The video does not clearly show the exact moment she was shot, which makes it even harder to accept what happened. At the end of the day, a woman is dead because she tried to drive away.

1. A woman is dead because she interfered with law enforcement operations, was warned to stop, was ordered to get out of her car, ignored those orders, dumped into an officer and then tried to drive away - lets be clear about that.

What I do not understand is this: in the same country, real murderers, rapists, and violent criminals are often arrested, charged, and taken to court.

1. Each situation is different and in the arrest of any those types of criminal, if the criminal creates a threat to life, then deadly force is allowed.

Some of them also resist, far more violent than this women.

1. Kicking, punching and screaming isn't necessarily a threat to life whereas hitting someone with your car is much more likely to result in serious bodily injury, and each incident is different with different people involved.

They are not shot dead on the spot. The normal and correct process should be to stop the person, arrest them, lock them up, and prosecute them to the full extent of the law.

1. You can't arrest someone that is already shooting at you. Just like you can't safely arrest a person that is driving a car and clearly willing to cause harm with it.

Instead, we now have a situation where an officer is alive with minor injuries, and a woman is dead.

1. It was her doing, not his.

Saying the officer “felt threatened” cannot mean police are allowed to shoot and kill someone every time a person panics, resists, or tries to flee.

1. Other instances don't matter. It's only this incident and weather the officer could be reasonably said to have feared for his personal safety - which i think he could.

Just put yourself in that situation. How do you know that you will act 100% correctly?? You might be nervous, scared or just feeling a bit off that day...And that gives the right to this so called "officer of the Law" to fucking shoot you dead?? I say Bull Shit!

1. Acting 100% correctly and driving your car into a cop and then attempting to drive away are very far from each other. It's not like he shot her because she refused to roll down her window. Lets not create false equivalencies.

She was not a dangerous criminal, terrorist or some lunatic. She is a family member, mother and a friend not deserving this treatment.

1. The guy is not a psychic...he doesn't know how who she is. And its not his responsibility to find out someone's history before he protects his own life.

There has to be a clear difference between stopping someone and killing them. In this case, the officer is alive, and the woman is dead. And that should simply not sit right with any Human being.

1. How do you stop someone, without killing them, when they are in a car, and willing to harm you?

Dead people cannot be arrested, questioned, or judged in court. Once a life is taken, there is no way to undo it.

1. Yes, this is why people tend to obey law enforcement orders and not escalate situations to dangerous levels.

That is why this whole situation is fucked up and shows the lack of respect for life by the " so called Law" that is there primarily to protect us, not kill us.

1. While you threaten someone's personal safety, cop or not, they have no obligation to protect you. You forfeit that protection in that moment.

Donald Trump's reaction about this shooting and other issue's, points more and more that this old relic is a dictator not a caring leader.

1. I'm not an old relic and i agree with him. That's why i behave appropriately around law enforcement and would never dream of interfering with their work unless it's to bring them a coffee.

The police officer's actions were overkill. 3 bullets.

Anyone could see that this woman was not dangerous.

Why was ICE even telling her to get out of the car? She was clearly a white American, so why is ICE even getting involved?

I saw even Joe Rogan is calling ICE - Trump's Gestapo...

Reports vary by source-

Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and mother of three, stopped her Honda Pilot diagonally across Portland Avenue, blocking the path shortly after dropping her child at school. Witnesses and video show her partner questioning agents nearby, heightening tensions.?

"The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who fatally shot Renee Good last week in Minneapolis, Jonathan Ross, suffered internal bleeding to the torso following the incident, according to two U.S. officials briefed on his medical condition.

It was unclear how extensive the bleeding was. The Department of Homeland Security confirmed Ross' injury, but has not yet responded to CBS News' requests for more information. This story will be updated as we learn more."

Translation:

"Two guys told us that they were told that Ross has internal bleeding to the torso. We don't know how much bleeding there is but we've asked them to clarify . . . and they haven't come back yet"

Big whoop! MAGA exonerated. Case closed!

LMAO!

Drive baby, drive.

When you create an environment where the police is vilified for doing their job and you have coordinated agitators making a habit of aggressively obstructing them from doing their duty, it's just a matter of time before these things happen...

"All that is required is a reasonable suspicion that your life is in danger. That's it." That's for a normal citizen's self defence test...for a law enforcement official the test is even lighter...suspicion of bodily harm is enough...she was committing a crime even before she tried to run him over...actions have consequences...Mike Waltz is getting precariously close to inciting an actual insurrection...ironically...

"When you create an environment where the police is vilified for doing their job and you have coordinated agitators making a habit of aggressively obstructing them from doing their duty, it's just a matter of time before these things happen..."

Sounds a bit like something someone would have said after the Jan 6 riots . . .

"Sounds a bit like something someone would have said after the Jan 6 riots . . ."

Yes, almost exactly the same thing...except that Trump explicitly told them to obey the law...but his actions was still recless in the situation...he should not have told them to go protest at the Capitol. Waltz is encouraging civilians to confront ICE.

she was committing a crime even before she tried to run him over...actions have consequences...

She had it coming.

That's for a normal citizen's self defence test...for a law enforcement official the test is even lighter...suspicion of bodily harm is enough...

Ah, liberal imagination and their capability to invent... Not saying that this police officer will get punished for what he did, liberal regimes have proven time and time again they struggle to hold police forces accountable. In fact, this case is likely to be a nightmare for many judges as they will be forced to create a precedent in order to exonerate the police officer.

This thread is another golden pearl as this board provides. Liberals advocating for people to be afraid of police forces among other things.

"She had it coming."

Never said that...what happened was a tragedy, but it would not have happened if she got out of the car when told to do so.

Trad, you're full of it...your constipation will kill you some day.

https://www.ruckersforum.com/forum/mikes-gripes/the-minnesota-killing/56580/

she was committing a crime even before she tried to run him over...actions have consequences...

Never said that (she had it coming)...what happened was a tragedy, but it would not have happened if she got out of the car when told to do so.

Of course not, nothing written stating she had it coming. No actions that call for consequences. And the extract about agitators forcing a distasteful atmosphere was not even quoted.

Liberals are all about submission. The same strategy ever and ever again, making blatantly incorrect claims and then demanding them to be acknowledged as correct.

Trad, you're full of it...your constipation will kill you some day.

Hey, considering the amount of faeces that is regularly spread all over the place, constipation should be tried... It may work, containing the flood... Who knows?

Contamination is horrible.

There are two contradictory WOKE rebuttals to the shooting. The cleanest is it’s just a lie, but which overlooks the legal penalties that lie risks, especially in the civil arena. And it was issued after enough time for these risks to be fully assessed.

The second is the agent wasn’t seriously hurt…which overlooks the shock of being impacted and the instantaneous nature of the response. And which accepts the agent was actually struck by the vehicle, be it ever so gently, blowing rebuttal one out of the water.

A reasonable argument has always been proportionality. But that argument doesn’t win in the courts or in the court of public opinion.

Rule of Law only works because the general public has respect for the law and the people enforcing the law. If you erode that, anarchy and lawlessness will follow...South Africa being a prime example...the Dems encouraging this kind of nonsense are putting America on a dangerous slippery slope.

Shame on you

il2g

R I P

"Shame on you"

...no shame, only sorrow...a lot.

Un-fkng-believable that the USA celebrates a 250 year birthday with their undisputed worst ever POTUS

"Shame on you"

...no shame, only sorrow...a lot.

klop you included ... Mnr Gullibility

Ou Bob, come back to South Africa and walk in my shoes for a week ...and then tell me how gullible I am.

I went for a walk last Saturday and a there were 4 police cars parked together. The cops were standing close by shooting the breeze with a lot of laughter.

As I walked on I saw the reason for their presence. There were a 100 or so protesters at a major intersection with signs condemning the Minnesota death. As the cars went by they hooted, I’m guessing in both approval and disapproval. But clearly the message was being received.

That’s a protest and the right to do that should be fully supported.

But when police are pushed, their cars rammed, they are hit with thrown objects and spat upon. That’s an assault and nobody has the right to do that.

Why? Because in any country with Democratic elections differences are decided at the ballot box, not in the streets. Protests are a protected way of changing minds…assaults are a denial of democracy..

When the rule of law has been lost, it's very difficult to get it back.

The problem woith the ule fo law is that it must be applied eually without regard to political issues, Garland never did, In 2020 he Demopcrats organized riots during which 46 eope wre murderedd by herioters. more than 1 200 police offiicrs were seiously njured barmed rioters using Molotov cocktails as well and arson andting ed to over $6 billion in damages. The Police arrested more than 1 500 rioters.

THe ffst thing the Biden -Autopen was to order the release of all rioters and never charged them with any crimes. The rioters could not be charged because ibn court the funding by the DNC would have bee exposed,

The present riot stuation in the USA are similar in many ways to the 2020 riots, The hand of the Democrts are clear in the stuation and like in 2020 the rioters - but this time aroubnd the police ae under more attack than for instance in 2020. This type of ction is whatreally undermines demiocracy.

. .

It's quite disturbing that refusing to even name a killing as morally wrong when context shows restraint was possible, is being morally incorrect.

The difference between me and some of the "posters" on Ruckers Forum, is not that I'm “anti-law", it's that I'm pro human life first. On the other hand, you start from authority and work backwards.

I start from life and ask whether authority acted proportionately. On the other hand it seems to be that some are acting out of a right winged fanatical stance, who thinks authority comes before life.

I believe my stance is a more legitimate moral framework. This absolutist battlefield logic on Ruckers forum, comes across as cold and inhumane.

A killing that could have been avoided, where de escalation or just stepping back out of the way of the slow moving vehicle was possible...like this officer could have done...is morally condemnable

Human life must come before narrative, ideology, or institutional loyalty. In comparison, those condoning this killing come across as violently inclined.

Who gets to decide who lives and who dies? Why should any human have the right to decide that for another human?

Also what about context? All the different factors playing a role in determining the necessary action is important and should be taken into account.

Or are we now living in a totally authoritarian society where it's compliance or death.?? Preaching democracy and conveniently overlooking it when it doesn’t fit your narrative makes the feeling contradictory and hard to follow.

It’s easy to sit far away, not implicated, and say authority is always right, any resistance gives them the right to act, and rule of law comes first.

Fact is it can happen to anyone. Life is unpredictable and rule of law is not always on the right side to protect you.

What happens if you get stopped by a cop on a power trip, or say something wrong, or react wrong or look at the officer the wrong way?

Or a harmless action as handing over coffee, is interpreted as threatening because of how you’re dressed or the color of your skin?

There is no ways in hell that you can predict that it will "never happen to me or I will not find myself in that situation". Then suddenly you"re not so sure about obeying anymore are ya??

Suddenly context matters. Suddenly restraint matters. Suddenly life matters. That’s always easier said than done if you’re not personally involved. If it happens to you, I bet it won’t be so easy to say this kind of stuff.