Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html
28 comments
Noem's straight up defense of the shooting appears to have been the declaration of "open season".
The precedent for which disciplinary action will be taken has not yet been set.
The precedent for which disciplinary action will be taken has not yet been set.
A couple in Portland were shot by ICE yesterday. Open season indeed.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/us/portland-oregon-border-pat...
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/us/portland-oregon-border-pat...
Here's the legal rubric, the "Five Elements of Self-Defense":
1. avoidance: duty to retreat: You must attempt to retreat or avoid the confrontation if it is safe and possible to do so without increasing danger.
2. innocence (non-aggressor): You must not be the initial aggressor or have provoked the incident.
3. imminence: The threat must be immediate and underway (or about to begin imminently)
4. proportionality: The force used must match the threat level without excess.
5. reasonableness: Your belief in the necessity of deadly force must be reasonable based on the facts known to you at the time.
1) I would agree that the officer did not try to retreat. But police officers do NOT have a duty to retreat as their line of work requires them to confront suspects - https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=113...
2. Not relevant as the police officer was being followed and harassed by the motorist and others while attempting to do his job.
3. The police officer was standing in front of the vehicle, unable to see the direction of his tires. He did see the vehicle was shifted into forward and rapidly accelerated. Watch video of the vehicle continuing to accelerate after the shot and then crash down the road a ways.
4. This is probably the strongest element. The police officer had a large vehicle accelerating at him and hit him, but perhaps he could have dodged or gone around it. It is hard to say given he had only one second to make the decision in a heated and dangerous situation, versus all of us arm chair quarterbacking with slow motion video.
5. The police officer could not see the tires of the vehicle, but he could see the vehicle being accelerated towards him. His belief was probably reasonable.
2. Not relevant as the police officer was being followed and harassed by the motorist and others while attempting to do his job.
3. The police officer was standing in front of the vehicle, unable to see the direction of his tires. He did see the vehicle was shifted into forward and rapidly accelerated. Watch video of the vehicle continuing to accelerate after the shot and then crash down the road a ways.
4. This is probably the strongest element. The police officer had a large vehicle accelerating at him and hit him, but perhaps he could have dodged or gone around it. It is hard to say given he had only one second to make the decision in a heated and dangerous situation, versus all of us arm chair quarterbacking with slow motion video.
5. The police officer could not see the tires of the vehicle, but he could see the vehicle being accelerated towards him. His belief was probably reasonable.
The vehicle did not hit the ICE agent. The video footage clearly shows the agent first stepping in front of the vehicle, then around to the driver's side with weapon drawn and aimed.
The vehicle did not accelerate toward him, it was turning away.
Have you seen the video from the officer's perspective?
The one where after he shoots her dead he says "fucking bitch?" The one where her last words are "we are not mad at you?"
The one where after he shoots her dead he says "fucking bitch?" The one where her last words are "we are not mad at you?"
FWIW it isn't clear who said "f*** b**": it could have been the officer who shot his gun but it also could have been someone else.
Time and analysis will show who said what and who did what.
Time and analysis will show who said what and who did what.
You expect a fair investigation into this? The head of the FBI has already been making statements and the locals have been thrown out of the investigation.
Besides, I'm fairly sure that it wasn't the general public there that said that about the person that had just been shot.
Besides, I'm fairly sure that it wasn't the general public there that said that about the person that had just been shot.
2 is at worst, still not a crime, and the citizen was trying to leave and get out of there when she was shot and murdered
2 is also "debatable" because we were told it by Noem/Trump, not by anyone at the scene, or shown in any video
2 is also "debatable" because we were told it by Noem/Trump, not by anyone at the scene, or shown in any video
I'm reminded of a Twitter joke:
> I have a mental illness that makes me think that people will change their minds if presented with correct arguments, appropriate facts and data.
> I have a mental illness that makes me think that people will change their minds if presented with correct arguments, appropriate facts and data.
On Wednesday in Minneapolis, a federal agent fatally shot a motorist, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good. Trump administration officials said these were “defensive shots” fired because the officer was being run over. But our analysis of bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range. Here’s how events unfolded. Moments before the shooting, the victim’s maroon SUV is stopped in the middle of the street. Multiple unmarked federal vehicles are idling nearby. Secretary Noem alleged the motorist “was blocking the officers in.” Bystanders are blowing whistles and yelling at federal agents. Then, federal vehicles start moving toward the maroon SUV with sirens and lights blaring. A federal agent films the scene on his phone. The driver rolls forward slightly, turning left, then stops and waves for others to go ahead. Two agents exit this silver pickup and walk toward the vehicle. Moments later, shots are fired. Let’s look at the scene again more closely. This is the agent who shoots the driver. He walks around the car filming and disappears from view. Other agents pull up and order the driver to exit her vehicle. One of them grabs at the door handle and reaches inside. The SUV reverses, then turns right, apparently attempting to leave. At the same time, the agent filming crosses toward the left of the vehicle and grabs his gun. He opens fire on the motorist and continues shooting as she drives past. The moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV and the wheels are pointing to the right away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it’s true that at this moment, in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV. The SUV crashes into a white car parked down the road. A bystander runs toward the collision. The federal agents on scene do not appear to rush to provide emergency medical care. Eventually, the agent who shot the motorist approaches the vehicle. Seconds later, he turns back around and tells his colleagues to call 911. Agents blocked several bystanders who attempt to provide medical care, including one who identifies himself as a physician. At the same time, several agents, including the agent who opened fire, get in their vehicles and drive off, apparently altering the active crime scene.
We're hearing two extreme interpretations of what happened from at least two political sides. Only one video was initially shown.
But there were multiple persons filming the incident, the police vehicles nearby likely had cameras and likely some officers had body cameras as well. And there may be surveillance video cameras on buildings too.
In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
But there were multiple persons filming the incident, the police vehicles nearby likely had cameras and likely some officers had body cameras as well. And there may be surveillance video cameras on buildings too.
In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
We now have the footage from the killer's camera. In my the interpretation that this was a murder was not extreme enough.
Sometimes extreme things happen. I mean this:
>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing.
>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing.
twixfel says >"Sometimes extreme things happen."<
I agree with that. Perhaps this is one of those "extreme things". But current interpretations of this event are politically extreme and harmfully polarizing to us as a people. So all the more reason to be cautious and circumspect.
twixfel says >"
[giardini]>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
[twixfel>"is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing."
Please remain calm.
My viewpoint is neither "a mad, mad take" nor "literal prejudice". nor "an opinion based on basically nothing". My viewpoint is a statement of our individual ignorance, of our lack of complete information, and a claim that none of us are omniscient. And it is a request that we be patient and trust our juridical system to proceed the way it was intended.
Although difficult, We must withhold judgement until all [evidence has been presented.**
I agree with that. Perhaps this is one of those "extreme things". But current interpretations of this event are politically extreme and harmfully polarizing to us as a people. So all the more reason to be cautious and circumspect.
twixfel says >"
[giardini]>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
[twixfel>"is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing."
Please remain calm.
My viewpoint is neither "a mad, mad take" nor "literal prejudice". nor "an opinion based on basically nothing". My viewpoint is a statement of our individual ignorance, of our lack of complete information, and a claim that none of us are omniscient. And it is a request that we be patient and trust our juridical system to proceed the way it was intended.
Although difficult, We must withhold judgement until all [evidence has been presented.**
It's wild that America is having a political 'debate' about this. We've all seen the videos. The woman was murdered in cold blood. In any sane society everyone would be united in condemning this officer's actions.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis...
This is (finally) a decisive video. Yet the NY times analyzes the video and gets it wrong. Here's why:
An important point: the vehicle the deceased was driving is either a front-wheel drive vehicle or a 4-wheel-drive vehicle. We know this b/c we see the front wheels spin, slipping on the icy road before gaining traction.
The video is taken from behind and to the left of the deceased's car. At first the front wheels of the car are pointed to the left and a moment later directly at the ICE agent in question. Furthermore the front wheels are spinning (because the throttle is pressed). Still another moment later the front wheels are pointed to the right and she drives down the street.
IOW *the throttle was down while the car was pointed first toward the left, then toward the ICE agent and finally toward the right. In fact the throttle was down so far the wheels slipped on the ice (you can see the left wheel spinning).
The icy road spared the ICE agent being run over. Had the road been dry he could have been struck and possibly killed.
Conclusion:
The spinning wheels point an incriminating finger at the driver: she was pressing the throttle while the car was pointed to the left, then directly ahead (at the ICE agent), and then to the right. No doubt whatsoever.
We make no claim about intent by the driver but there is little doubt that the ICE agent would have been struck had the road and tires been dry.
This is (finally) a decisive video. Yet the NY times analyzes the video and gets it wrong. Here's why:
An important point: the vehicle the deceased was driving is either a front-wheel drive vehicle or a 4-wheel-drive vehicle. We know this b/c we see the front wheels spin, slipping on the icy road before gaining traction.
The video is taken from behind and to the left of the deceased's car. At first the front wheels of the car are pointed to the left and a moment later directly at the ICE agent in question. Furthermore the front wheels are spinning (because the throttle is pressed). Still another moment later the front wheels are pointed to the right and she drives down the street.
IOW *the throttle was down while the car was pointed first toward the left, then toward the ICE agent and finally toward the right. In fact the throttle was down so far the wheels slipped on the ice (you can see the left wheel spinning).
The icy road spared the ICE agent being run over. Had the road been dry he could have been struck and possibly killed.
Conclusion:
The spinning wheels point an incriminating finger at the driver: she was pressing the throttle while the car was pointed to the left, then directly ahead (at the ICE agent), and then to the right. No doubt whatsoever.
We make no claim about intent by the driver but there is little doubt that the ICE agent would have been struck had the road and tires been dry.
The video shows someone who could just have taken a step back (or better still, not stepped in front of the goddamn car in the first place) deciding instead to shoot someone in the face. Even if everything you’re saying were true – which anyone can verify is not the case by watching the video you've linked – it would be completely insane to try to stop a moving car by shooting the driver.
On top of all this, the ICE agents clearly had no legitimate reason to be interfering with this woman’s car anyway, as she was driving away from the scene and was not suspected of any immigration offense.
On top of all this, the ICE agents clearly had no legitimate reason to be interfering with this woman’s car anyway, as she was driving away from the scene and was not suspected of any immigration offense.
A step back would not guarantee safety. Had there been no ice, the car likely would have struck the agent (b/c she "gunned" the engine).
But yes, it was not safe to step in front of that car. The engine was running and the transmission was engaged at least some of the time. But that is one of the dangers officers face every day, e.g. directing traffic, etc.
foldr says >...which anyone can verify is not the case by watching the video you've linked...<
I invite all to view the video at
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis...
and note that the
- wheels of the car are spinning and/or
- the car is moving forward
whilst the wheels are pointed (assuming the driver's perspective)
- first, to the left of the ICE agent,
- then, toward the ICE agent, and finally,
- to the right of the ICE agent.
That is, she "swept" the position of the ICE agent while the wheels were spinning or pulling the vehicle forward.
foldr says >"...it would be completely insane to try to stop a moving car by shooting the driver..."
Shooting also encourages a driver to point the vehicle away from the shooter.
The question is not one of sanity but of what is legal.
The spinning wheels point to interpretations favorable to the ICE agent. There is no denying that she gunned the motor and simultaneously "swept" his position while the wheels were spinning and the motor racing.
But yes, it was not safe to step in front of that car. The engine was running and the transmission was engaged at least some of the time. But that is one of the dangers officers face every day, e.g. directing traffic, etc.
foldr says >...which anyone can verify is not the case by watching the video you've linked...<
I invite all to view the video at
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis...
and note that the
- wheels of the car are spinning and/or
- the car is moving forward
whilst the wheels are pointed (assuming the driver's perspective)
- first, to the left of the ICE agent,
- then, toward the ICE agent, and finally,
- to the right of the ICE agent.
That is, she "swept" the position of the ICE agent while the wheels were spinning or pulling the vehicle forward.
foldr says >"...it would be completely insane to try to stop a moving car by shooting the driver..."
Shooting also encourages a driver to point the vehicle away from the shooter.
The question is not one of sanity but of what is legal.
The spinning wheels point to interpretations favorable to the ICE agent. There is no denying that she gunned the motor and simultaneously "swept" his position while the wheels were spinning and the motor racing.
Why the downvote?
Renee Good hit the gas while her wheels were pointed to the left, directly at, and to the right of the shooting ICE officer. You can see the wheels moving the whole time. So at some moment as she drove away the ICE agent was facing an accelerating car headed directly toward him. That provides justification to shoot.
Had the street been dry she would have run into or over the ICE officer. He was spared harm b/c her car's wheels failed to fully gain traction on the icy road.
The logic and the physical situation are inescapable. You may not like it but that doesn't change the facts.
Renee Good hit the gas while her wheels were pointed to the left, directly at, and to the right of the shooting ICE officer. You can see the wheels moving the whole time. So at some moment as she drove away the ICE agent was facing an accelerating car headed directly toward him. That provides justification to shoot.
Had the street been dry she would have run into or over the ICE officer. He was spared harm b/c her car's wheels failed to fully gain traction on the icy road.
The logic and the physical situation are inescapable. You may not like it but that doesn't change the facts.
Hell there's even a theorem in calculus about this situation: maybe someone can remind me of it's name.
[deleted]
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agen...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_poin...