Two Days, Three Towns: Protests in Northern Humboldt Over Immigration Enforcement and Minneapolis Shooting
Protestors in Trinidad Sunday. [Photo provided by Ted Pease]
Press release from Trinidad Protestors written by Ted Pease:
More than 75 people (and six dogs) turned out for Trinidad Indivisible’s protest on Sunday against the killing of a 37-year-old Minneapolis woman by a masked ICE agent,“ICE Out for Good” was the theme of nationwide weekend protests decrying the death of Renee Nicole Good, who was shot three times in the head by ICE agent Jonathan Ross on Wednesday as she tried to drive away from a confrontation.At Trinidad’s rally and in other marches from Seattle to Miami, protesters called for abolishment of ICE — the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that has been scouring communities for suspected illegal immigrants on orders from the Trump White House.[Photo provided by Ted Pease]
Trinidad protesters waved signs at passing motorists, the vast majority of whom honked and waved back in support. Spirits were high, but the demonstrators’ purpose and determination were deadly serious, participants said. “Trump is evil,” one woman said. “He has to go.”
Singing and chanting, the group marched through Trinidad to the Harbor overlook and back, waving signs against President Donald Trump’s “Evil, Authoritarian Agenda” and “Keep Us Safe and Free from the Dictator DT.”
Trinidad Indivisible founder Tina Freeland said she was gratified by the turnout, especially at short notice. “We want to send a message to Renee’s family, to the Portland couple shot on Thursday by federal agents, to all those who have been targeted/terrorized by ICE and especially to our elected lawmakers that this cannot continue!” Indivisible Trinidad said online. When Freeland created the group last fall, she was told it was the smallest Indivisible chapter in the country.[Photo provided by Ted Pease]
The group grew out of efforts by Barbara Snell, 94, who flew the American flag upside down — a signal of distress — outside her Main Street home, and held a solo anti-Trump rally on Main Street in April 2025. That grew to a dozen or so for a first “No Kings” rally last summer to nearly 50 in October.Among the signs at Sunday’s “ICE Out for Good” rally:• “Fight Fascism”[Photo provided by Ted Pease]
• “Remember Renee”
• “This is What a Domestic Terrorist Looks Like”
• “No Tax Cut for Billionaires”
• “Melt Ice”
• “Hate Will Not Make Us Great”
• “When Masked Goons Rule Our Streets, We Have Domestic Terrorism by Secret Police”
• “Make America Sane Again”
• “Stay Peaceful. It Confuses Them”
As the demonstrators broke up, one man commented: “I didn’t see any ICE thugs. I think it worked.”
Information provided from Arcata’s protesters late on Sunday:
Dozens of protesters gathered to protest the increase of ICE presence and violence across the country, voicing their outrage over the killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, Minnesota earlier this week. Protestors had homemade signs and upside-down US flags. Signs read messages such as “melt ice,” “do you not see the suffering?”, and ” we are allowing murder.” Protestors gathered on the corner of 8th and G and did several laps around the plaza, waving signs and chanting phrases such as “no hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here.”This protest is one of many happening all across the country this week. The event was organized by community member Jacob Sonye, a first-time organizer who felt called to action.”We felt compelled to gather, reinforce, and stand up for rights afforded by the U.S. Constitution and by law. We feel that ICE’s actions not only violate constitutional and human freedoms, but also diminishes trust and cohesion within our communities and our government. Our aim is to help people realize that they can be a part of rebuilding and reinvigorating for change” said Sonye.Protest on the Arcata Plaza late Sunday. [Photo provided]
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Thank you for standing up for all the child rapists, murders and domestic abusers that ICE is arresting in Minneapolis. Here is a list of these poor souls you are helping elude arrest.
So brave!!!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ice-arrests-minnesota-surge-include-numerous-convicted-child-rapists-killers?
Can you cite a source that isn’t the propaganda arm of this Administration?
You think the arrests posted are fake?
Okay, I guess.
For those who would rather swallow razor blades than click a Fox News link, here is just one of these fine fellows captured by ICE in Minneapolis…
Sriudorn Phaivan, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of strong-arm sodomy of a boy and strong-arm sodomy of a girl, another aggravated sex offense, nine counts of larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, obstructing justice, possession of stolen property, receiving stolen property, burglary and check forgery.
President Pedophile is doing everything under the sun to distract from the TrumpStein Pedo-files.
Both things are true, criminals rush to get a fresh scene to be unknown in and our leaders exploit children on camera for foreign intel agents so they can be in ‘The Club’
Everyone wants to think because they can see the other side as an abomination that it means they are on the good guys team, its all the same, two hands of the same evil merchant selling corruption
Stop telling the truth, divide and conquer are clearly Nazi troupes.
tropes
One bad apple don’t spoil the whole of their society.
That is police work. That is not Border patrol work. Capturing a bad guy is a good thing, just not with face masks, M16s and camo outfits with no nametags on the street thugs.
You seem to be confusing ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) with CBP (Customs and Border Protection).
Police are law enforcement officers.
ICE and CBP agents are federal law enforcement officers.
I hope that helps.
Just because YOU label a news source as ”propaganda arm of this Administration” dose not make it so. That is just your own opinion. Over the last ten years these sources have been proven correct. Everything the leftwing news sites say or dispute is called propaganda and fake news and conspiracies, has been proven true. Its a small .02% of the hardcore progressives who are screaming so loud, and claiming to represent 60% of the population who cant think for themselves.
No? The owner of Fox News who called it “entertainment” was the founder, Rupert Murdoch, during a 2020 election fraud deposition, admitting hosts promoted false claims for ratings, a key moment revealing the network’s business model
Don’t be the left we equivalent of climate change deniers.
No use showing facts and figures, is it, Ten of Diamonds. Just shout and wave signs and get the endorphins flowing. No one cares what happens in Humboldt, but the empty headed keep providing the PD with overtime…
this is who YOU support. Nice job.
https://greaterandgrander.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-republicans-arrested-or-accused-for-pedophile-charges/
https://verdict.justia.com/2017/01/05/republican-fail-sex-assault-child-sex-abuse
Donald Trump has made America a nation of Punk Ass Thieves.
Who will Trump’s brownshirts murder today?
Christianity made it to China in the 630s a.d., it still hasn’t made it to the Republican Party.
Hypocrisy be thy name.
https://whyy.org/articles/child-molesters-thankful-donald-trump/
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/04/politics/capitol-rioter-rape-charge
A man pardoned by President Donald Trump for storming the Capitol was arrested on child molestation charges, according to Florida officials, who said he tried to use an anticipated Jan. 6 payout to silence the victim. Andrew Paul Johnson, 44, was arrested in Tennessee in August and extradited to Florida on charges of lewd/lascivious molestation, lewd/lascivious exhibition and transmission of material harmful to a minor.
FOX. The entertainment channel. Tragic leanings to the right, but yeah, entertainment ONLY. It is not supposed to be believed as real news.
The owner of Fox News who called it “entertainment” was the founder, Rupert Murdoch, during a 2020 election fraud deposition, admitting hosts promoted false claims for ratings, a key moment revealing the network’s business model
This is why I avoid trinidad and arcata and eureka on the weekends like the plague. Wingnuts. I support the rules and the law.
For a fever-dream of rapid response from tax-dodging wastes of oxygen, look no further than the comments section over at Kym’s.
Source?
I support the Constitution of the Unite States. Renee, a U.S. citizen, was murdered by ICE and I appreciate everyone who demonstrated as is their legal right. Section 1 of the Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Renee absolutely had the right to peacefully protest.
She did not have the right to block the road with her car and impede federal officers.
She did not have the right to ignore lawful orders to exit her vehicle.
She did not have the right to accelerate her vehicle while another human being was in her path.
Renee made some very bad choices, and she sadly paid the ultimate price for those choices.
Soooooo obey or die????
I WILL NOT OBEY
I really won’t be obeying 20yo halo cosplayers who like to crack skulls
gtfoh
Let the frolicking begin.
Well, best of luck to you on that very ill-advised position.
If an officer is ordering you to do something that you don’t think he has the right to do, I highly suggest you obey, and then fight it in court. Much more like to get a good outcome going that route.
It’s more like obey or you’re going to escalate things. And depending on how you disobey a lawful order you will escalate the situation more or less.
This is always been the case. It’s never been okay to decide to hit a cop with your car.
You can ‘not obey’ with a “PEACEFUL protest”. Using your car or any other weapon is not “peaceful”. ICE is doing the job we elected Trump to enforce. They are not the enemy. In fact, they are doing us a favor by trying to weed out the worst of the worst from the millions allowed to enter our country with impunity during the last administration A wide open border does not protect citizens. In fact, without knowing who has entered our country illegally, it puts our citizens in peril as evidenced by the crimes we know they have committed here. Immigration is a process, when done legally, that we have had for decades. Legal immigration is not the issue. If you want to go against law enforcement and follow the “rent-a-mob” propaganda, just be aware the law is the law and most of us want to re-instate law and order. The only chaos is from the left and all the protests turning violent. Think before you act.
Well said, Barbara.
Please don’t good riddance lmao 🤣 you’ll get a rip bozo from me
Same ones who wanted to force the covid vaccine one millions of people and take our rights away nope not a hypocrite or anything
So “comply or die?” We’ve all seen the videos, especially the one the ICE agent who shot and killed her took. He stood in a position to block her vehicle. We can she her attempt to flee and steering away from him. He could have easily stepped aside, yet he choose to stand his ground and use lethal force.
You can argue all you want about the 1st shot, but shots 2 & 3 were through the side window. He was no longer in danger. He was just an undisciplined thug with a lethal weapon angry that a woman was not respecting his masked and shrouded “authority.”
You are demanding super-human traits of an officer that don’t exist in the real world. All 3 shots took place within half a second. Officers are trained to double-tap center mass and keep shooting until the threat is neutralized. It takes the brain about half a second to act once a decision has been made and another half a second to stop the action once the decision to stop has been made.
I am not thrilled with this shooting in general. I wish he would have taken a different course of action, but from a legal standpoint, I believe the shooting is justified. If you go back half a second before the officer shot, he had a vehicle revving its engine and spinning its wheels as it accelerated directly toward him. It is reasonable to perceive that as imminent great bodily injury. The three shots were so close together, they need to be treated as a single action. That makes the shooting lawful. You might not like it, but that is the law. You would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross did not reasonably believe that he or another officer was in danger of great bodily injury when he decided to shoot. That seems highly unlikely given the circumstances.
I’m not asking officers to be superhuman. We need to shape the next officer’s decision.
If we don’t want officers to shoot, we can’t reward shootings by treating them as automatically justified the moment an officer places himself in danger. When there are no consequences, the lesson taught is the wrong one.
Accountability is what nudges the next officer to make different choices: not stepping into the path of a vehicle, not standing in front of it, not firing that first shot unless there truly is no alternative — and certainly never firing shots two and three by default.
When the system says, “This is fine,” it encourages repetition. Deterrence isn’t anti-law-enforcement; it’s how you shape safer behavior going forward.
Officers placed themselves in danger regularly, that’s part of their job.
Officers find themselves in front of running vehicles on a regular basis.
A vehicle represents lethal force, it is absolutely appropriate that law enforcement officers respond with legal force when threatened with a vehicle.
The alternative is to teach citizens that officers are obligated to move out of the path of their vehicle and let them attempt to escape.
Well, you need to address the DOJ then. Here’s their own policy:
“firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle” https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force
The video shows him trying to get out of the way.
That’s absolutely true, and I clearly noticed it as well…
How could that be so easily missed…???
Entirely blaming the officer simply isn’t rational…
Neither is not holding the driver accountable in any way…
Again, demanding an officer to take in all the information of a vehicle accelerating directly toward in and in a fraction of a second, calculate that he has time to jump out of the way, while standing on an icy road mind you, is asking for super-human brain function and reflexes.
Like you, I wish it wouldn’t have went down like it did. But the only one who could have easily prevented this was Renee.
I also think the facts on video will prevent him from being prosecuted under law, but super right Kym is, we should not normalize taking their word for it, every life lost should be studied extensively and the facts published so others may alter their best practices, I know many will be upset with the outcome but pushing back on authority and checking the nature of its boundaries is a constant job for anyone who loves the constitution.
Good’s actions should also be just as extremely closely scrutinized as Ross’s reactions are being so extremely closely scrutinized…
So true, Hugh…
We think alike….
Thank you for saying the things in so many comments that I have erased…
You said it much better than I could have…
Same.
Thank you, Hugh.
Thanks guys, I appreciate that!
Often it feels like I’m just pissing into the wind, so it is nice to know at least a couple people appreciate the posts. I could certainly be doing other things🤣
Seems to me the gal could have De-escalated the situation by not blocking LEO and complying to the order to get out of the car. She and her husband made some bad choices.
Had that happened the cop wouldn’t have shot her.
What your link says is “Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.”
This hinges on whether it was unreasonable to expect the officer to be able to get out of the way in the time given. So far there are lots of opinions divided by political motivation but can you link to any expert opinion? It seems what you are saying is it is meaningless that the agent actually was knocked over and you think he should simply have not stood there. That leads to the scenario where no criminal (not saying Good was a criminal but it would be the effect of your idea) need to ever obey an order to exit a functional vehicle because no one can enforce it. There would be one OJ-on-the-highway- being-followed-by-herd-of-cop-cars after another.
I would also like to point out that Kym is quoting POLICY, not law.
I don’t think the officer violated policy, but if he did, they can fire him. The law is a bit more permissive on when an officer can use lethal force and that is the determining factor in whether his actions were legally justified.
“Moving out of the way” of which of numerous and quickly ever-changing “paths”, of the vehicle, exactly, was he supposed to move out of, other than the one he had already moved out of…???
It didn’t have one, predictable path, or even one observable path, that could have easily been avoided… pa
Her “path” became entirely unknown, changing, and totally unpredictable…
There was nothing consistent about it…
When Good shifted from reverse into drive and accelerated before turning her front wheels to the right, she could have gone forward to the left, straight ahead, as they were pointed when she started spinning them, or slightly to the right…
Ross was smack dab in the middle of her unknown, possible paths, after already getting out of her way, once…
He had nowhere to go, like a deer caught in the headlights, as she accelerated towards him, and hit him with one of her headlights, the one on the driver’s side…
It’s unreasonable to expect Ross to have performed like Keanu Reeves’ character, Meo, in ‘The Matrix’, deftly dodging deliberately dangerous diabolical deeds dramatically…
You expect Ross to have immediately bent over backwards, on an icy road, in freezing weather, in order to accommodate Good’s non retreating, aggressive, life threatening escape, when all Good had to do was just leave it in park, and/or just pump and hold the damn brakes, and, yet, for whatever reason, you have no expectation of that from her whatsoever, and just cavalierly and non chalantly excuse her every unwise move, as if she could somehow only do no wrong…???
She accelerated her vehicle in reverse, wheels turned to her left, putting Ross, who was safely positioned before that, in her path, as he shifted to his right to get out of her way, and with her vehicle pointed to his left, but her wheels pointed to his right, she then shifted it into drive, and accelerated forward, while turning from left to right, in a wide, arcing “path”…
He now had nowhere to go, and she was coming towards him, wheels spinning…
That’s a great big danger zone, that Good created…
That’s basically the equivalent of pointing a full choke scatter gun at him, cocking the hammer, and then pulling the trigger…
The vehicle represents a wide arcing projectile…
The crux is that she actually ran into him…
Your expectation of self control to have only been exercised by Ross, but not also Good, is an entirely unsupportable double standard…
What, exactly, absolves Good, in your mind, of necessarily using the same, exact kind of unwavering good judgement, that you have absolutely expected, without exception, or equal absolution, from Ross…???
Its very possible that both Good and Ross felt that they were in danger…
Why cut Good total slack, but not Ross…???
Hold them both accountable, or hold neither accountable…
Or explain the obvious inequity…
If you think Ross should have easily avoided that danger to himself, by simply getting out of the way before it was too late to have avoided danger, then why don’t you also express the expectation of Good having easily avoided danger, by getting out of the way, before it was too late to have avoided danger to herself…???
What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander…
You keep focusing on the agent and his actions while ignoring the actions of the person he shot.
This tragedy was 100% avoidable if the deceased had simply complied with lawful orders to exit her vehicle — instead she hit the accelerator with an armed agent virtually on her bumper.
The actions of the agent…you mean firing two more shots through her window as he walked past and calling the now dead woman (certainly dying but we won’t know because ICE did not allow medical personnel near her) a fucking bitch.
Who is the alleged professional here? You don’t want to be a professional (or have PTSD from a previous incident) you have no business being there at all.
As for the actions of the deceased it is obvious that there is wide disagreement as to what actually happened. All we all know for sure is that he continued firing after he was safely out of the way. In a fit of pique caught on video.
What actually happened before the shooting is crystal clear:
1.) Renee intentionally used her vehicle to interfere with enforcement actions;
2.) She refused lawful commands to get out of her vehicle;
3.) She hit the accelerator in an attempt to get away from the situation she created.
Tragically for her there was an armed agent virtually on her bumper — as close as inches up to a couple of feet or so away — giving the agent very little time to react.
I think she was trying to get away — not run anyone over — but if she’d followed orders there’d have been no shooting and we wouldn’t be having this debate.
Even if and many disagree what you say is true, as I said Ross grossly overreacted to the point of completely unnecessary and frankly unhinged responses.
Again, he is allegedly the professional who should be held to the standards that the DHS has itself previously laid out. Though the current DHS certainly isn’t abiding by their own rules.
But giving him a pass, particularly for the second and third shot is allowing rouge actions by ICE (and there are many) to become the standard.
I have relatives of Hispanic heritage and look very much so (according to the Kavanaugh Stop 🙂 ). They are born and raised in the US, one serving full-time in the NG has been deployed overseas a number of times), but THAT doesn’t seem to matter to ICE. Both have experienced harassment by good old boys in the past. I hope they won’t and worry that they will also be subject to ICE thuggery.
American citizens have been detained even if they have ID and in one case at Target in Minnesota the kids were even carrying their passports. That didn’t stop ICE from throwing them down and in one case, even knowing the kid was American roughed him up and then left him a long distance away when they finally let him go.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/google-chief-scientist-jeff-dean-calls-border-patrol-arrest-of-teenager-in-minnesota-as-completely-not-okay-elon-musk-responds-says-do-you-have-/articleshow/126456917.cms
Minnesota is being targeted because it stood up to the ICE fuckery.
The three largest states with undocumented people are California, Texas and Florida. Yet ICE is throwing a huge vengeful hissy in Minnesota.
I agree with your comments about ICE thuggery and could add a few of my own — anyone thinking this is what a majority of American’s voted for is either ignorant, racist or both.
But second guessing this agent’s split second decision making isn’t going to prevent the next tragedy.
Renee wasn’t innocently protesting — she was actively interfering with enforcement actions — and when she accelerated with an agent just feet or inches from the front of her car — instead of getting out of her vehicle — she created a potential deadly force situation.
People are pissed about a big deployment of federal troops in their towns and cities. They have a right to be monitoring and protesting. I’d be pissed if it was happening in my neighborhood. I think she had every right to be doing what she was doing, she was polite and friendly in her interaction (her wife not so much) and I do believe this was a murder. That’s what I saw.
“Minnesota is being targeted because it stood up to the ICE fuckery.”
No, Minnesota is being targeted because of the massive amount of immigrant fraud and crime.
I have hit my finger with my hammer and cried out “Fucking Bitch!” before. Not a lot but at least once in 50 years of hammering. There was no woman present. I don’t think I was calling my hammer a bitch. Like many swears it can also be used as a cry of pain or shock directed at nobody in particular. So I’m not sure he was talking about her or the situation itself. If you are absolutely sure he did mean her then you may be experiencing the tunnel vision that goes along with pre-judgement. In which case you will stubbornly argue with me. But the truth is that neither of us really know…heck- he might have meant her protagonistic wife! In which case he’d be correct…
Do we even know if he was the one that said it and not one of his fellow officers?
As so much else, is it legally meaningless anyway. Trying to use that to prove malicious intent is ludicrous.
The fact that we’re zooming in to analyze shot #2 and #3 both fired within the same .3 second burst, while ignoring four straight minutes of escalating defiance, obstruction, threats, and a literal assault with a deadly weapon… says everything.
Kym, you want to “shape the next officer’s decision”? Let’s start by shaping the next protester’s. Don’t weaponize your vehicle and act shocked that it gets treated as a threat.
Kym, you present a few things as fact, that most certainly are not…
One…You state the officer stepped into the path of a moving vehicle. That is simply not true. The officer was placed in the path of the vehicle when the driver backed up and changed the angle of her car 40-45 degrees to the right, pointing right at the officer. I do believe Ross may have continued to cross in front of the vehicle while it was stopped, most likely to help the other officers subdue the woman, but it certainly did not appear that he was deliberately placing himself in front of the vehicle to stop the car.
Two…You say we cannot reward shootings by treating them as automatically justified. Who is saying we should do that? I have no problem with an investigation. We do, however, have a lot of video that we can draw conclusions from. From those videos I believe that the officer was in reasonable fear that he or his fellow officers were in danger of great bodily injury, and if that can not be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt, that’s it… case closed…from a legal standpoint anyway. If ICE wants to fire the guy or reprimand him for his actions, that is fine too as that is their purview.
Three… You state an officer should never fire a shot unless there is no alternative… and certainly never firing two and three by default. Well, there is ALWAYS an alternative. Don’t fire, and take the chance of great bodily injury or death. Fortunately the law does not make such a harsh demand of someone before they are allowed to use lethal force.
As to your point about not firing shots two and three as default, well… that is exactly how officers are trained. They are trained to double-tap center mass and not stop until the threat is neutralized. If your life is in danger, and you decide to use lethal force, you want the threat stopped and stopped quickly. That is seldom done with a single shot.
You are barking up the wrong tree…
You demand no accountability from Good…
You have misplaced the onus of accountability in this case…
You act like drivers are unfettered with any responsibility to do so well within courteous, law abiding, acceptably safe and legally binding parameters while respecting the right of ways and well being of others…
You keep trying to only blame and hold Ross accountable for HIS actions, like he was the only adult present, while simultaneously dismissing Good’s actions and accountability, as if Good was merely some angelic, innocent, swaddled infant child, that never, ever even left her crib …
Why the selective vision…???
Good was menacing behind the wheel, and represented an ongoing hazardous condition, to herself, and to others, even before she tried to flee…
She blocked the road, sideways, waved vehicles around the front of her, and then menacingly rolled her vehicle towards them very closely, within a foot, as they hesitatingly passed by…
That was nuttier than squirrel shit, after being held for 72 hours…
Do you find nothing whatsoever unacceptable or consequential about HER behavior, conduct, actions, driving, and/or decisions…???
She was the one in the driver’s seat…
Maybe you didn’t notice or properly consider that…???
“Maybe you didn’t notice or properly consider that…???”
Maybe because she doesn’t have to? It’s not a requirement when acting as a moderator. You’re just trying to goad her into having an opinion.
You, are just trying to goad, me…
“Maybe you didn’t notice or properly consider that…???”
Accountability is what nudges the next person who is considering forcing a law enforcement encounter and repeatedly escalating it to make different choices: not switching from observing to obstructing, not parking sideways in the middle of a street and refusing to move the vehicle, not refusing the order to get out of the vehicle, not reversing to point the vehicle directly toward the officer, not engaging the forward gear and accelerating toward the officer with spinning tires, not striking the officer with the vehicle.
Perhaps a little wry look at the situation from Jon Stewart might help you understand why the majority of the U.S. no longer views the country as a moral leader in the world.
Probably not. But hey, I get to enjoy watching it again.
So, breaking the law is justified as long as it’s done to oppose Trump — got it.
I wished this didn’t happen either, but I knew it was just a matter of time with what was coming out of the mouth of the governor and the mayor. Free speech aside, what were they doing encouraging defying law enforcement? If a person drives their car into a store front and robs it, and law enforcement shows up, are we supposed to assume that the person who decided to drive their car into the store front and rob it wouldn’t be expected to abide by the law enforcement officers commands or just take off endangering those around them. What this all comes down to is cause and effect.
Also, in July 2020, Governor Walz signed into law a use of force statute that officers can use deadly force if a driver accelerates toward them.
I have read all the statutes regarding self-defense in Minnesota and don’t recall seeing anything worded quite like that. Can you cite the statute you are referencing?
Well I have read all the statutes but AI says there is not one. Everything I’ve read refers only back to federal guideline and makes no specific reference to an “accelerating vehicle.”
MN law section 609.066
The link if one needs it.
609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.
FYI, AI can be a crapshoot when doing less-specific deep-searches. Sometimes you have to manually dig. Kind of like Wiki on a lot of things; it’ll get you in the ball park but not your seat.
609.066 does not state what you claimed. Perhaps read it next time before you post.
…then under 609.066, an officer may legally use deadly force if a reasonable officer would believe:
Courts consistently treat vehicle-ramming as a deadly force situation.
Along with other parts of the section, would need to play out in court ( if it were to happen).
Agreed, and you should have used the actual wording , not the spin where you said “officers can use deadly force if a driver accelerates toward them.”
you made it sound as though Walz passed a law specifically addressing the use of lethal force when a vehicle accelerates toward you. In reality, it is just the standard of imminent threat of great bodily injury that is pretty much universal.
I just thought your spin was misleading and unnecessary.
Minnesota’s updated use-of-force law (MN Stat § 609.066) doesn’t literally say “if a driver accelerates at an officer,” but that scenario is legally interpreted as an imminent threat of great bodily harm which meets the threshold for justified deadly force under the 2020 revisions signed by Gov. Walz.
And also supported by specific judicial outcome Graham v. Connor Standard (1989 Supreme Court)
He did step aside as the vehicle made contact with him. He decided to shoot simultaneously.
It’s a good decision because there’s no telling who the uninched driver may have hit next.
An officer is trained to unload the clip once the decision has been made to use deadly force.
No you don’t amie for the leg you amie for the torso.
Ahhhh I see your with the Cyprus Hill school of thought on trigger discipline.
They are definitely not trained to “unload the clip” when shooting, but they are trained to keep shooting until the threat is eliminated. Now factor in that it takes a half second for your brain to process and send the signals to your muscles to stop shooting once you have made that decision, and we you end up with a situation where more shots are fired than many would deem necessary.
She is not attempting to “flee” (which, BTW, she was asked, by officers, not to do). Stepping in front of a vehicle is standard when said vehicle is blocking law enforcement. It is supposed to deter the person resisting law enforcement. Fleeing is not accelerating and going straight at the man in front of the car. Expect to have a bad outcome if your purpose all day long was to block ICE from doing their job and resisting officers trying to get you to stop. Her wife told her to “drive baby drive” knowing there was an ICE agent trying to deter her and remove her from the car. She made a really bad choice and the result was what it always is when people decide to go against law enforcement. It is a tragedy but so was the ambush of two ICE agents not long ago. Showing disrespect for the law is not an American right and most people know better. The noise from rent-a-mob is causing the chaos and making normally sane people make bad choices. The result is avoidable, think before your react to the hysteria and hyperbole because resisting officers with the threat of deadly force of any weapon (cars are weapons) will always end badly.
Not that we will ever know for sure, but I believe that she was trying to flee. However, she did so in a completely reckless manner with total disregard for the officers’ safety and in violation of a lawful order to get out of the vehicle. Her intent is legally meaningless to the legality of the shooting however.
This seems apropos.
It would to people who invented Cancel Culture.
Ask Kaepernick who invented cancel culture, that was your cult daddy fool!
Yes, I am flashing back to all the Covid mandates during the Biden administration.
Murdered? Did I miss a trial?? Asking for a friend
A comment I posted on the article about a helicopter hovering in southern Humboldt was taken down yesterday. I suspect this happened because I linked that story to the incident in Minnesota, where a woman was shot in a car. In my defense, my understanding is that law enforcement is generally not supposed to fire into a vehicle. In that case, an investigation was skipped, and politicians publicly drew conclusions about the victim’s guilt before the facts were established—further fueling public anger.
I think it misses the point when people dismiss the fears that lead others to protest heavy-handed federal policing; those fears are valid, just as the fears of immigration-related community changes are. I respect everyone’s right to speak out and protest peacefully. Historically, peaceful protest has been one of the most powerful agents of change.
The comment was taken down because it didn’t link to the topic in the post at all. It just talked about Minneapolis shooting. If it would have been on the Booking log or on this post, it wouldn’t have been taken down. But we ask commenters to stay on topic and provide the booking post as a place to talk about anything else they want to.
My bad. Thank you for the clarification. Keep up the good work please.
Imagine getting your “news” from Fox and wanting to be taken seriously.
Imagine consuming the corporate machines slop and thinking your nourished
The same is said about CNN. So…
This is great sick comedy. A bunch of old, grey, very white, Democrat Raging Boomer grannies and their feeble gelded husbands, almost all transplants from Santa Barbara with a fourth vacation home in Trinidad, are yelling about keeping border jumpers here and how Trump is mean. What’s really funny is these same spoiled rotten Democrat Boomer nitwits were just as vicious when the Trinidad Rancheria wanted to build a hotel on their own sovereign land. Yes, they were, 100%, and they know it even though they will deny it. Typical, denial in the face of facts. These hypocritters protested against it, enraged that the hotel would mar their view looking back across the bay from Trinidad head. It would interrupt their peace and lower their property values they claimed. Yep, money again, right. They pulled out every obstacle possible. Yet, their homes sit on formerly Yurok lands, stolen by whitey. What do these old rotten nitwits not understand about sovereign nations? In a way, they are the invaders, the border jumpers. Quite ironic indeed.. This tells you everything you need to know about these Democrat boomers. Selfish and greedy, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, my precious Ring.
American Democrat Boomers (Trinidad is the microcosm) = the worst of the worst humans currently occupying Earth. They will not be missed and their demise will be celebrated with a round of pints for all!
Every generation has its hypocrites, mine more than most.
Your constant harping on the evils of older people is beginning to be hate speech. You can make a similar argument about people’s perceived hypocrisy without throwing so much hate towards something you are going to be someday and that your hostess is now.
I find myself repeating an old adage more often these days:
As you are now, I once was.
As I am now, you will be.
It’s not an adage. It’s from, appropriately enough for this site, popular lines put on gravestones since the black death in the middle ages in Ireland. “The tomb bears an inscription mentioning both James Rice and his wife Katherina Brown along with the following memento mori:
https://heritageireland.ie/2020/10/as-you-are-now/
How interesting!
Thanks for that!
Thanks for that, Yabut.
What I usually say to people that point out the foibles of the elderly is, “You are going to be old someday… or not. Either way tickles the shit out of me,”
Back on the subject… What happened to Ms. Good was terrible for both her and the cop.
The person that paid this out of control woman to protest should be charged with manslaughter. She was paid to be there to disrupt ICE and the cops. It was an overly charged situation that was bound to end badly… and did.
Ernie, could you provide a link to information about Renee Good being paid to protest? I can’t find even one respectable news site (left, right, or center) stating that. I can find Trump calling her and her wife, ““professional agitators.” He said that the government would “find out who’s paying for it.” However, he offered no evidence to support his claims. And neither has anyone else. One might believe Trump has inside information if he was a normal president but he so consistently says things that are…hyperbole? untrue? mistaken? that it doesn’t seem prudent to take him at his word.
Kym, you are right again. Thank you for not deleting my comment. I heard it on a news broadcast. Silly me, believing anything that I hear, see or smell on mainstream media.
AI said: “The claim that Renée Good was paid $100,000 to protest comes from President Donald Trump and his allies, who labeled her a “paid agitator” following her fatal shooting by an ICE officer in Minneapolis, but these claims are baseless”.
However, I firmly believe that some protests are sponsored by outside money. I also believe that protesters should always follow the law and the legal orders of any law officer.
It must be okay to pay protesters, but some get to be so angry that they become irrational and do dangerous things. So, Ms good gets to be a Heroic Martyr now. But, I am sure that her wife would rather have her alive. Food For Thought.
Even If they found that Ms. Good was paid, I don’t think that they could ever convict her sponsor, unless they could prove the sponsor asked her to violate the law. Sad, sad, sad situation.
Lots of folks seem to share your belief that people are paid to show up and protest, Ernie, but my lived experience keeps getting in the way of agreeing. After CAMP and the Timber Wars, it’s hard for me to imagine many protestors needing a check. Conviction has always been the currency here—and it’s paid in unlimited supply from some of us. Do you think Daryl and Judi and Bonnie Blackberry, Ed Denson, and the women in black and Peter Childs and The Man Who Walked in the Woods, (and I’m sure we both can name more given half a chance) needed anything but a passionate belief that they were right to grab some cardboard and some markers and stand under the town clock?
Heck, I’ve marched in Berkeley and in Eureka. No one ever paid me nor anyone I knew about.
The average protestors are not paid, but the organizers and leaders are. You see the same leaders at protests all across the country. They are getting paid and paid well! It is their full time job. Big money is poured into organizing and supplying these protests. Nate Friedman has exposed a lot of the paid protestors and the NGO’s and non-profits that fund them.
https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/ali-alexander-charlie-kirk-capitol-riot-transcript-b2252572.html
Like that?
Mr Kirk deleted a tweet he wrote in 2021 boasting that TPUSA had funded “80-plus buses full of patriots” to send to Washington DC for Mr Trump’s rally.
Sure, of course. Just like the Conservative movement has paid organizers. Some popular conservative organizer groups are:
FreedomWorks was a conservative advocacy group known for organizing major protests, notably helping to fuel the Tea Party movement in 2009 against Obama-era policies and later playing a role in organizing anti-lockdown protests in 2020. Adam Brandon made close to 200K in 2019 in direct compensation not mention other benefits. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/521349353
Turning Point, a conservative youth oriented group that organized the Stop the Steal rally. Charlie Kirk got a salary from his work there.
ReAwaken America Tour, I think they were involved in the anti COVID lockdown rallies
It is certainly good and comforting to know that all those millions of dollars that went to Black Lives Matter didn’t go to fund any protests.
I could point out other rather glaring examples, but they would also fall on deaf ears.
I know that there are zealots that would pay to protest. A lot of folks show up and pass out food, drinks, brownies, weed, tents, sleeping bags, sign material, etc. It makes for a pretty fun party to show up to.
Please don’t be so naive as to think that protesters don’t get huge benefits! Just not in the form of a paycheck. That would cause too much bookkeeping and other legal stuff.
P.S. I fully support legal protesting. Hell, I even went to a George Floyd protest. I never saw so much idiousity in my life. And… these are the people that are supposedly going to move the needle toward justice?
Apples and oranges, Kym…
A direct comparison between you and the “Goods”, isn’t logical…
You and the people you mention may not have been part of an overarching, organized, funded group, directing, training, encouraging, organizing, notifying, providing guidance and enforcement locations, and thereby deploying it’s members to certain areas of ICE enforcement, in order to physically hinder ICE, and forewarn illegal immigrants, thereby potentially aiding and abetting illegal immigrants, but that doesn’t mean other protesters are not part of a funded, ICE Watch organization that does so…
You and the people you mentioned may not have received communications, equipment, training, grooming, and encouragement, oversight, refreshments, and possibly even kudos, from a funded “parent” organization affiliated with your children’s charter school, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that was not the case with Renee Good…
Were the Goods Professional, “paid/ funded” Protesters…???
Maybe not…
You and the people you mentioned may have each protested independently, yet coincidentally, together…
But that doesn’t mean that Renee Good and her wife weren’t working in concert with and receiving “guidance”, directly from a professional, “funded” overarching ICE Watch, school affiliated, protesting oversight organization, who acted as “the concert’s” dispatching “conductor” and overseer……
Renee Good and her wife may not have been directly pulling in a paycheck, but they weren’t acting totally independently of a funded, professional protest organization, and their concerted efforts and cooperation with that ICE Watch group that they represented, is what justified and resulted in the funding that the professional protest organization received…
Renee Good and her wife may not have been earning money directly for themselves, but they were both indirectly earning funding for the ICE Watch organization that they represented even if they were doing so voluntarily…
I think that it’s safe to say that the way that Renee Good and her wife were protesting, and who they were affiliated with, was very, very different than the way that you and the people you mentioned, protested and the funded organizations you and they were, or were not, affiliated with, if any…
Ernie, you seem a bit confused about the origins of the fake news about Renee Good being a paid protester.
First you say: “I heard it on a news broadcast. Silly me, believing anything that I hear, see or smell on mainstream media.”
Then you say:
‘AI said: “The claim that Renée Good was paid $100,000 to protest comes from President Donald Trump and his allies, who labeled her a “paid agitator” following her fatal shooting by an ICE officer in Minneapolis, but these claims are baseless”.’
You may have heard it on MSM but only because they were reporting what Trump said and what his cadre of partisan propagandists were parroting — and you see it on the comments here all the time — Mr. Clark and others keep repeating the claim about paid protesters but without ever providing the slightest bit of evidence.
I might be naive, but you exceed me.
Do tell?
Please clue me in — who was the paymaster for the Trinidad protest?
You really are naive if you think any of the protesters who turned out in Trinidad, Eureka or Arcata were paid to be there.
How did you move the subject from Minnesota to Trinidad, Eureka, and Arcata?
And, how did you miss where I said that zealots would protest for free?
Or, how did you miss the part where Millions of dollars were donated to Black Lives Matter?
(more than $90 million to BLM) I know, most of it went to graft and corruption. But, don’t think some of it went to promote protests?
Either way, you’re not naive, Ernie.
Scroll up and check out the photos from Sunday’s protest.
Indivisible’s banner is featured prominently in several photos and even mentioned in the article.
”Trinidad Indivisible founder Tina Freeland said she was gratified by the turnout, especially at short notice. “We want to send a message to Renee’s family, to the Portland couple shot on Thursday by federal agents, to all those who have been targeted/terrorized by ICE and especially to our elected lawmakers that this cannot continue!” Indivisible Trinidad said online. When Freeland created the group last fall, she was told it was the smallest Indivisible chapter in the country.”
Who funds Indivisible? Follow the money and you won’t be surprised.
Who thinks it’s a financially winning strategy to pay 75 people to show up in Trinidad, California? That’s not a swing district, not a media hub, not a pressure point. It’s a small, socially liberal town where people already know each other and already have opinions. The much simpler explanation is that people showed up because they were angry, grieving, or worried — which is how most small-town protests actually happen.
Yes, Indivisible is a local progressive activist group that is part of the national Indivisible network, known for providing an organizing framework for local actions, including recent protests against ICE actions that occurred across the nation. They almost surely have paid leaders at the top–Just as Charlie Kirk or Adam Brandon from Freedom Works were. They mobilize people for demonstrations.
What puzzles me is your apparent certainty that these local folks can’t be genuine. There seems to be no trouble believing that thousands of conservatives from across the country felt passionate enough to travel to D.C. on January 6 — and I agree, many of them absolutely did as paid organizers helped coordinate them and helped get them passionate about being there. There’s nothing wrong with that. So why is it so hard to accept that liberals might also show up, locally, for something they care about?
You can disagree with the cause. You can think the messaging is wrong. But defaulting to “follow the money” every time people gather on the left skips over the far more mundane reality: sometimes people are just upset enough to grab some cardboard, make a sign and stand on a corner.
“What puzzles me is your apparent certainty that these local folks can’t be genuine.”
When did I ever say that?
You didn’t say that explicitly, and I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but what I was responding to was the implication of pointing to funding and saying “follow the money.”
In political discussions, that phrase is almost always used to suggest that a movement is less organic or less sincere — even if no one says “paid protesters” outright.
If your point is simply that Indivisible exists as an organizing network, I agree — that’s factual and uncontroversial.
If your point is that organization itself should make us skeptical of the people who show up, that’s where I push back. Conservative groups organize the same way, and I don’t see folks on the left as a rule act like conservative protestors are somehow not genuine.
You headlined them…
That’s real exposure…
Those grass root schematics multiplied many times over in small towns across America, highlighted by multiple small town news organizations such as yours, have the networking potential to turn it into a winning strategy…
With enough help by enough liberal news organizations…
Call it the grapevine…
Lets not kid ourselves…
That’s how to get the most bang for the bucks…
…………………………………………………………
“…sometimes people are just upset enough to grab some cardboard, make a sign and stand on a corner.”…
-Kym Kemp-
__________________________________
And sometimes,they are just that hungry and broke…
“ANYTHING HELPS”
Does “Indivisible network” feed them…???
Does ‘Indivisible network’ send out notifications to local news organizations…???
How did you find out about this protest gathering…???
Completely by chance…???
Were you directly or indirectly notified by Indivisible network…???
Or, in some other way…???
By their secondary minions…???
It definitely seems staged…
Things aren’t always as they appear…
Are these protesters pre registered and on call to protest, when someone else from “Indivisible network”, decides it’s time, or are they all coincidentally gathering individually and independently of their own accord…
Follow the organizers…
Indivisible Civics is a 501(c)(3) organization.
Donations to Indivisible Civics are tax-deductible.
This branch focuses on civic education, training, and resources for activists.
The Protesters are more organized than the people that they are protesting.
It takes a lot of money to fund a volunteer organization… The protesters don’t need to be paid, everything they need is already paid for. Go figur’.
And there are no taxes coming or going.
I’m still not clear why the existence of an umbrella organization somehow undermines their genuine protest.
.
What I see are homemade signs and people who showed up because they cared. An organization providing a way for people to find each other, share information, and agree on a time and place to meet doesn’t mean anyone was paid or their passion was manufactured. It just means someone sent an email. Or put up a post on a website.
Conservative organizations do the same thing — provide structure, lists, coordination, messaging — and no one assumes that makes those participants less genuine. Why is it treated differently for liberals?
My idea when someone calls out “paid protestors” are folks who are given some amount of money to show up at a given place to look like they care about a subject when they actually don’t or at least not enough to show up without the money. Am I not understanding what you mean?
I’m still not clear why the existence of an umbrella organization somehow undermines their genuine protest.
-Kym Kemp-
___________________________________
Maybe this will help clear things up for you…???
Here are the faces of ‘Indivisible’…
Its not so much about who protesters under the umbrella…
Its about who has got the handle on that umbrella…
None other than Hilary Clinton, and her ilk, organized shortly after her defeat by Trump in 2016…
The only thing genuine about “Indivisible” is it’s political vengeance…
‘Indivisible’ is clearly a manifestation of a woman scorned…
https://www.onwardtogether.org/organization/indivisible/
“Indivisible is fueling a progressive network to defeat the Trump agenda”
Kym, I think that I said I am 100% all-for protest. (Pro-Protest?)
Humboldt county is different from many other places. They would protest one-legged grasshoppers if they thought they liked Trump.
I don’t even care that they are paid. I would love it if Los Angeles paid thousands of Humboldt County protesters. It would help our pathetic economy.
The only thing that I find laughable is the constant denial that they are subsidized. They don’t have to be paid directly, in fact that would screw up their system and cause them to lose there 501c3 tax advantage.
Why do you care that there are folks that sponsor protest? I don’t care that the Tea Party is sponsored.
I love my sister-in-law that is a lobbyist in the State Assembly of Pennsylvania. She votes Democrat and even worked on John Fetterman’s campaign when he was brain dead. She is welcome in our house at any time. She is the hit of the party. (no we don’t pay her to be here, but we do provide her with food and drink.)
I think the disconnect is in how broadly “paid” is being defined.
If having an organization, a website, an email list, or even snacks available counts as being “paid,” then we’re in a world where church potlucks are paying people to attend church, coffee at a town hall is paying civic participation, and pizza at a campaign phone bank is buying votes. At that point the word stops doing any real explanatory work.
Yes, organizations have funding and infrastructure — across the political spectrum. I don’t find that shocking or nefarious. What I’m pushing back on is the idea that this explains why individual people showed up better than the obvious answer: they cared enough to come.
The Indivisible umbrella organization provides…
“Tools, training, and guidance”…
“Paid”, defined like this…???
https://indivisible.org/campaign/indivisigather-community-building-event-reimbursement-program#:~:text=IndivisiGather:%20Community%20Building%20Event%20Reimbursement%20Program%20%7C%20Indivisible
https://indivisible.org/campaign/distributed-fundraising-program#:~:text=The%20program%20provides%20groups%20with%20the%20following,work%20The%20program%20has%20certain%20spending%20restrictions.
https://indivisible.org/campaign/financial-support#:~:text=The%20Indivisible%20GROW%20Grants%20program%20provides%20financial,Helps%20groups%20raise%20money%20for%20their%20activities
“HOST A FUN, COMMUNITY-BUILDING EVENT…
and Indivisible will reimburse up to $1500 for your eligible expenses!
That’s why we’re continuing our largest-ever reimbursement program, IndivisiGather!
Your Indivisible group can access up to $1,500.00 to cover the costs for FUN gatherings that help organize your group, build community, and lean into organizing basics–outside of any issue advocacy and political organizing. These gatherings can be structured around group retreats, barbecues, ice-cream socials, coffee chats, book clubs, game nights, beach gatherings, hikes, virtual get-togethers, etc. Whatever members of your group like to do that will help them recuperate, deepen their understanding around issues, and build on their friendships with each other, find some time to do it together and IndivisiGather can help cover the costs!”
__________________________________
Plus tech tools, etc., etc., etc…
How about “paid” defined like this…???
(Middle link…)
“You can spend funds you raise through this program on general group costs like Zoom or a website, outreach and community events, advocacy work, and more. But because we are a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, there are certain spending restrictions. Review our document to see if this program is right for your group! ”
DISTRIBUTED FUNDRAISING
WE MAKE FUNDRAISING EASY!
“Is lack of funding a barrier to your group’s work? Has your group struggled with keeping track of donations and expenses? Would you like to be able to accept credit card donations and pay for group costs via a debit card
We’re excited to present a potential solution for you
Indivisible’s Distributed Fundraising program is a streamlined process for groups to fundraise without forming a board of directors, writing bylaws, registering as an independent organization, or seeking out 501(c)(4) status. As part of this process, we will provide you wit
An ActBlue page for supporters to donate directly to your gro
A debit card to spend the funds you rais
Guidance and resources to help you maximize your fundraisin
Access to information about who has donated to your group
And a system for reporting and monitoring your group’s spending.
Our distributed fundraising program provides your Indivisible group with the tools you need to fundraise and spend funds.”
Mmm hmmm…
Thank you, TRG.
Wait until they find out about ActBlue smurfing.
Or, maybe, “paid”, defined like this...?
(From the third link…)
“GROW Grant proposals are submitted and reviewed monthly. The each application “round” has a deadline on the third Tuesday of each month.
See our 2026 Application Deadline Calender
Skip to jump navigation section
Now in Grant Amount
TIER I: UP TO $2,000
Project involving only 1 Indivisible group(s)
*Limit of two Tier I grants per group, per year
TIER II: UP TO $4,000
Project involving 2 to 3 Indivisible groups
TIER III: UP TO $6,000
Project involving 4 to 9 Indivisible groups
TIER IV: UP TO $10,000
Project involving 10+ Indivisible groups and/or is a statewide or cross-state organizing effort
*Limit of two Tier IV grants per state, per year.
“Who’s eligible to apply?
Those requesting and accepting grants must be active members of an Indivisible group that is registered with Indivisible, and be using the money to fund activities approved by their group and its leadership.
The applicant group, or another Indivisible chapter partnering on their proposal, must have a registered Distributed Fundraising account in order to complete the application.
What can be funded?
GROW Grant money must be used for Indivisible-led activities that increase collaboration between two or more Indivisible groups, and/or for activities that build capacity for the group(s) involved by focusing on things like recruiting new members, developing leadership capacity, increasing technical skills, and building racial equity and inclusion.
How are grant funds received?
One of the groups involved in any grant must have a Distributed Fundraising account. This is so that we can distribute the funds to you seamlessly and maintain legal compliance.
If you do not have a Distributed Fundraising account, you must set one up now and go through the onboarding process before applying.
NOTE: Registering and activating your account can take a couple of weeks. You cannot apply for or receive grant funds without it.
What’s the grant usage timeline?
Grant funds should be used within six months of receipt.
Grant recipients need to report that appx. 75% or more of their most recent award has been spent before they will be considered for another grant funding the same project.
Recipients’ Debrief Surveys are due once the project is completed.”
_________________________________________
“I’m still not clear why the existence of an umbrella organization somehow undermines their genuine protest.”
-Kym Kemp-
___________________________________
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, this might have something to do with it…???
Were you aware of this…???
___________________________________
‘Indivisible on Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention’
https://indivisible.org/statements/indivisible-secretary-hillary-clintons-speech-2024-democratic-national-convention
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 19, 2024
“WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Indivisible’s co-executive director and co-founder Leah Greenberg issued the following statement on Secretary Hillary Clinton’s speech at the 2024 Democratic National Convention:
“Secretary Clinton’s address tonight felt like a full circle moment for many of us. Thousands of Indivisible activists were volunteers for her campaign eight years ago, and many quickly pivoted from that work to build this movement and the resistance that countered Trump throughout his first term. Secretary Clinton’s campaign in 2016 was foundational for many of us who continue the fight against Trump today.
“Tonight, eight years after Secretary Clinton became the first woman nominee for president, we’re gathered again with new enthusiasm and new lessons on how to fight Trump—and win. The resistance is alive and well, with women leading the way in this election to elect Kamala Harris as the first woman President of the United States of America.”
__________________________________
Therefore…
Anything organized by Indivisible is nothing more than basically just a Progressive Anti-Trump political movement, organized by his losing political opponents, and much less of a politically unbiased genuine public protest of any kind…
If the Liberals and Hilary Clinton, had won against Trump in 2016, instead of losing to him, Indivisible would not even exist…
If the Liberals and Kamala Harris had not lost again against Trump in 2024, Indivisible would naturally have just faded from existence…
Indivisible is just the manipulative manifestation of a likeminded bunch of Liberal sore losers like Hilary Clinton and Kamala Harris, who care more about themselves and defeating Trump’s agenda, than they will ever care about Renee Good…
Does that help to clear things up…???
🤔🧐,
It gets better, Ernie…
As I say sometimes…
“The “plop” thickens”…
😁
…………………………………………………………
Ask AI
“Is hilary Clinton associated with ‘Indivisible’ …???”
AI Overview
“Yes, Hillary Clinton is associated with Indivisible; many of her 2016 campaign volunteers became core Indivisible activists, and Clinton’s Onward Together group later listed Indivisible as one of the progressive organizations it supports, though Indivisible itself is an independent grassroots movement.
Key Connections:
Volunteer Pipeline:
Indivisible’s founders noted that many early activists in their movement came from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, pivoting their energy to resistance after the election.
Funding/Support: In 2017, Clinton’s political action committee, Onward Together, announced support for several progressive groups, including Indivisible, to counter the Trump administration.
Independent Movement:
While sharing supporters and receiving some strategic backing, Indivisible maintains its own grassroots identity, focused on local action against Republican policies, as seen in their participation in joint progressive statements.”
__________________________________
That definitely takes a great deal of the supposed “genuineness” out of this protest…
The subject was paid protesters — it’s a recurring theme here in the RHBB comment section — but Renee Good wasn’t being paid in Minnesota and AFAWK nobody’s being paid in Humboldt.
Reading comprehension can be really tough — listening also — that’s probably why you blamed MSM for the ridiculous claim that Good was a paid protester when the fabrication originated with Trump.
As for BLM yes, that’s a great example of fraud and corruption but I’ve yet to see a scintilla of proof that anyone was being paid to protest — but it’s very likely people were paid to be BLM “organizers” with a comfortable salary and lavish expenses paid.
Not unlike Turning Point USA — reportedly with income of $85 million in 2024 — that paid its multi-millionaire founder and CEO a reported salary of about $400,000, with top managers reportedly paid $200,000 or more, field reps paid $40,000-$60,000, campus coordinators $34,000-$49,000, and so on — but AFAWK nobody was being paid to protest.
🤔 🧐 ,
………………………………………………………..
“…if he was a normal president…”
-Kym Kemp-
__________________________________
Really…???
SMDH…
Hmmm…
Ask AI
“Is Kym Kemp professionally qualified to decide who is a normal president with legitimate certainty…???”
AI Overview
“Kym Kemp, a local blogger known for her site kymkemp.com (Redheaded Blackbelt) covering Humboldt County news, ➡️isn’t a political scientist or medical professional⬅️; her role involves reporting and commentary on local issues, ➡️not holding official qualifications to make definitive judgments on presidential legitimacy or normalcy⬅️, a subjective determinationoften based on political viewpoints, constitutional interpretations, and public perception, not objective professional certification.
Here’s why this isn’t her field:
Her Background:
Kemp is known for local news, crime, and community events in Northern California, as seen in her blog posts about local hospital issues or legal cases.
Presidential Legitimacy:
Defining a “normal” or legitimate president involves complex constitutional, legal, and historical analysis, typically handled by legal scholars, political analysts, and the electoral process, not bloggers.
Subjectivity:
What constitutes “normal” or “legitimate” in a president is often a matter of intense political debate and personal opinion, not a scientific or professional diagnosis, making it impossible for anyone, even with credentials, to declare with absolute certainty.
➡️In essence, her qualifications are in local reporting, not federal political science or constitutional law, making such a declaration outside her professional scope.⬅️”
__________________________________
…it doesn’t seem prudent to take, [whom exactly], at, [whom exactly’s], word.”…???
“[Kym], could you provide a link to information about [President Trump not being a normal president]? I can’t find even one respectable news site (left, right, or center) stating that. I can find [Kym Kemp], [insinuating that Trump is not a normal president, by saying, “…if he was a normal president…”]. However, [Kym Kemp] offered no evidence to support [her] claims. And neither has anyone else, [who is properly qualified to do so]. One might believe, [Kym Kemp], has inside information, [or a confidential source/informant], if she was a normal [neutrally unbiased journalist] but [she] so consistently says things that are, [so extremely Anti-Trump], that it doesn’t seem prudent to take [her] at [her] word.”
___________________________________
Turn about is fair play…
nobody here can probably admit or see the bigger picture over these minor specifics that are being bickered about, which in sum, may be a self-proving example of capitalism destroying democracy. If you get enough capital, through the supposed mechanism of capitalism, you can more effectively wield it in ways that destroy democracy. So bickering about paid protesters should be no different than bickering about paid politicians (by lobbyists, PAC’s, wealthy donors, etc.)
This isn’t really the point I want to make, but it seems that if we step back and look at the bigger picture, this point is being made for us, regardless of what makes of feel good to believe or think.
Whether it’s racism, sexism or ageism it’s always easier for failures in life to demonize another group instead of looking at their own behavior and seeing where they can improve to get better results.
A case in point…
…………………………………………………….….
“…it’s always easier for failures in life to demonize another group…”
-TBT-
_________________________________________
Hint:
You have “effortlessly” just “successfully” “demonized those you have so angelically described as “failures in life”…
Bravo…!!!
That was quite an accomplishment…
Which biblical proverb was that exactly…???
The irony is palpable…
Thanks for proving your point…
(Hypocrisy, irony, and projection, abound…)
And, same goes for those who demonize current presidents as well….
(I should know, I’ve done it myself…)
Admittedly, not one my best characteristics…
And, yet, you forgot to mention projection…
Its always easier to use projection, than it is to use self reflection…
Thank you for the shining example…
It’s as if it was a snooty grammatical correction, yet improperly spelled, and incorrectly punctuated…
My favorite kind of, “SMDH”, moment…
I applaud you..
Encore, por favor ….
Kym,Respectfully,
Demographics Matter.
They are overwhelmingly Senior citizens,Female,Caucasian,and Afflunent.
And that is the respectful way to state the facts, which Kym is pointing out that Al did not do, his was more demonizing
I’m an old Boomer now too! Not sure how it happened. But I agree that my generation of spoiled brats (The ME generation) is pretty selfish and blind to the opportunities and wealth we were given. It’s not just about being old but about a particular generation. And of course not all of us boomers. The ideals of the 60’s and 70’s were good and many kept them close to heart. But not most. And for some those old ideals got twisted and deformed into performance stunts and self-righteous delusion as the yuppie soul grew dominant. Maybe this commenter would be better to identify the generation and leave “old” out of their comments? I don’t think being old makes you stupid- but I think old people who led a stupid life for decades might be especially stupid…
Find a generation that didn’t lead ” a stupid life for decades.” The amount stupid remains the same. It is only the direction of stupid that changes.
Well I’m still debating whether the Anti-Flynn Effect is due to leaded gas.
Ummm… they said, “…MINE more than most.”
Doesn’t that imply they are already part of that generation?
My sentiments exactly. The Trinidad Rancheria only desires to better themselves in the same way that the inhabitants of the conquered lands surrounding their postage stamp boundary have.
The Rancheria has given so much back to the community and in return these same protesters , of which I’ll refrain from naming,are the the ones who impose their “ hegemonic powers”upon these Indian peoples.
They where promised those powers decades ago
Al….I think the internet isn’t the place for you today, you’re far too uptight. Go outside. It’s a sunny day.
Donald continues to act out a familiar Mad Magazine quote, “People are no damned good”, not knowing this was biting satire.
Even before Trump was born. It came from William Steig’s 1942 book The Lonely Ones, My late grandmother used that quote often to describe incorrigible adults.
Vitching and whining it’s become America’s number one sport.
It happens so much now that it has lost its value.
A few.points
1. Don’t come to the country illegally you dont have to.worry about ice.
2. Don’t block traffic that is not protesting that is illegal and violating other people’s rights. Some.people have jobs they need to go to or medical appointments they need to get to.
3. Don’t hit people with cars on purpose. I dont care if it’s a cop, ice or average joe on the street. Getting shot is a conquince of your actions and perfectly legal and morally correct. You can severly injure or kill people with your car at low speeds so tough shit.
“Vitching and whining it’s become America’s number one sport.” Nothing changed except labels. Back in the day we called ’em “nattering nabobs of negativism”
Who will Trump’s brownshirts murder today?
President Pedophile is doing everything under the sun to distract from the TrumpStein Pedo-files.
Look at all the racist “Christians.”
America beat Trump supporters in WWII, and WE WILL beat them again.
This kind of rhetoric is exactly what poisons public discourse. Calling political opponents “brownshirts,” accusing millions of Americans of murder, and casually invoking civil war isn’t courage, it’s projection and panic, and it’s obvious you don’t have facts, just your emotions.
Conservatives aren’t stormtroopers. They’re parents, veterans, workers, and taxpayers who believe in borders, law, free speech, and equal treatment under the law. Disagree all you want, but dehumanizing half the country is the language of authoritarians, not defenders of democracy.
Invoking WWII is especially absurd. America didn’t “beat” its own citizens then, and it won’t now. The real threat to a free society isn’t people voting differently, it’s people justifying hatred, censorship, and political violence while pretending it’s moral.
If your argument requires calling your neighbors Nazis to feel righteous, you’ve already lost the argument.
Agreed — well said.
All of you who are standing up to protest the horror of Renee Good’s murder have my support, love & respect
Murder? Was there a trial I missed?? Asking for a friend..
There’s not going to be any trial but you’ve obviously missed a few videos.
Yes, murder. Specifically Voluntarily Manslaughter.
So we become judge, jury and executioner based off a few videos?? Sounds rash.
And Murder and Voluntary Manslaughter are 2 very different things, so which is it and why?
Being passive won’t help either.
Well, let’s have another pathetic little protest march, and then go on down to the Senior Center for the $5.00 Lunch…
I also think the world is going to hell in a bucket, but then I have been living in the shadow of possible Nuclear Annihilation for my entire life…
It’s fucked up, the sudden focus on border enforcement, but we obviously can’t keep letting in terrorists, Somalis, and Jihadis from wherever…
BTW, it is never a good idea to aim a car at a man holding a loaded assault rifle…
Everything everywhere is beginning to look like a Taylor Sheridan show that’s taking a left turn to “everything is going wrong” land, and it’s about time all those Burka-Wearing Women in Iran pick up an AK-47 and start shooting the leaders and the Military…
Meanwhile, news is diverted from Israel utterly destroying Gaza, and from the USA taking over absolutely everywhere at once, but that’s another protest…
People have been getting deported and detained since I can remember, and I feel lucky to have lived this long without having to be in a shooting war…
The Billionaires who own everything should be the next targets, but they are all out on their Mega-Yachts somewhere warm, while the Elders are screaming into the void, at least until lunch…
The worst thing, right now, is the total lack of Sport-Wagons and the fact that we are forced to buy one of the 2000 kinds of SUV’s instead, or a God-Damn Subaru…
Fuck the violence, fuck the Government, and, fuck anyone who violates our laws, even the minute ones, and if you don’t like it, go back to your tin-pot country at your own expense, and right away please…
Agreed. Here’s a couple rural Washington and Maine blue dog dems that have a point. They even mention how a lousy brand new pickup truck will keep you in debt and can’t be fixed realistically because fixing our crap has been grandfathered away (pun intended)
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/opinion/marie-gluesenkamp-perez.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
I think its both proof of the privilege the white boomers had and their brainwashing guilt psychosis the media programmed in to them. They betray their bloodlines interest and serve Them without knowing it
“Privilege” is a word I couldn’t even spell until I spent time in Humboldt…
You folks use a few words like “white”, “boomers”, and “privileged” to excuse your lack of education, experience and “working for it”…
I was privileged to earn a minimum wage of $1.35/hr to work at McDonalds, and I didn’t even know I was being exploited…
I was privileged to work at age 10 through age 66, and I would probably still be working, except for the shifting of cultural mores towards other types of persons, but don’t for one minute think that the average citizen of this country works for somebody who is ACTUALLY “privileged” by birth and economic status…
It is unamusing to see how few have the ability to afford decent retirement, much less decent healthcare and a secure future when they reach the age of these protesters, and only about 50% of people currently “retirement age” possess secure, affordable housing as well as adequate income to live out their lives without having to work…
Prepare yourselves, because the rich have it all and the workers are just experiencing the new slavery…
Remember, George Washington was a wealthy Farmer and a slave-owner, and the Revolutionary War was fought (supposedly) to escape the rule of those who would have “owned” the new world and all the citizens…
Nothing has really changed, in 250 years, except there are more readily available “slaves” and fewer and fewer of them are “White” at all…
“Boomers” will die in their own time, but we worked for whatever we have, and “privileged” is a status increasingly requiring concentrated effort to achieve…
We’re supposed to welcome all, but we are becoming fractious and incessantly pitted against each other, and it is possible that the best decades in our country’s existence are in the past…
Europe and the UK have been ruined by free immigration, and we are following the same model, but, laws require respect, which appears to be in short supply…
Marketing and snake oil sales are not the explicit domain of “white boomers”. In free-er societies and functioning democracies, everyone gets an equal chance to sell something to the masses.
“but then I have been living in the shadow of possible Nuclear Annihilation for my entire life…”
October 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis, living in southern New England. I remember riding the school bus to work and seeing the Nike missiles out of their silos and on launch rails. Sobering indeed. We didn’t know at the time, but since found out via FOIA requests, that they were nuclear tipped because they weren’t sure they could actually hit Russkie bombers, and with nukes, you only need to be within a mile or two. They had decided to sacrifice southern New England to try and save New York City. Even more sobering.
I grew up 10 miles from Beale AFB, and Missile Silos plus the 24/7 B-52’s carrying Nukes were just a fact of life… Not to mention the SR-71’s and constant Fighter Scramble Drills overhead…
We learned to hide under the desk, there at Public School, but the Generational Trauma and the long-term effects of the Trauma haunt me still at 73…
A bit further north than your experience, my dad was USAF during the Bay of Pigs shindig. He was an MP at Nike Ajax air defense nuclear missile sites , and also base MP at Elmendorf watching over bombers ready to drop nasty things on Russia if that came to be. I remember his stories noting all that darkness in Alaskan winters and the stress from knowing that if a Nike missile battery was launched, it was the end of civilization. That caused a lot of non-combat PTSD and depression and stress of not knowing if tomorrow comes. They had to rotate out commands to compensate not just the weather, but to keep the site personnel mentally fit.
LOL, so sad. These old fools look sad. Trying to relive the 60s of their childhood. And the younger ones who follow. I guess they all have a moral stake. These people probably belong to the indivisibles. A radical nutcase group of progressive. Kind of harmless compared to the antifa jackasses.
i dont like ice
You can dislike ICE for their violent authoritarianism and also dislike those who use herd morality to enforce their authoritarian views. Accelerationists just want to push the pendulum as hard as they can in hopes it topples one of these times.
I like Ice, especially in my sweet tea
Everybody has the right to peacefully protest. I do not agree with these people. But I support their right to peacefully protest. I only wish that Mrs. Good had also peacefully protested and she could be here on one of our beautiful north coast days to protest peacefully with these folks. Nobody wanted her dead. Nobody wanted to shoot her. Nobody wants to kill anybody in these deportations. The ICE program is not at fault even if some individual officers need to be disciplined. ICE is unfortunately a necessary program to push back on years of lax border enforcement. It’s sad we let our borders down and that now we have to take strict measures. When you allow people to routinely break laws with no consequences and then begin again to enforce those laws it always seems mean and unjust…but it’s not! It is simply enforcing the original laws that were always on the books. I don’t think protesting to support lawbreakers is a very effective solution to anything. I hope to see ICE here soon in Humboldt to help clear up any confusion about the immigration laws. I know that Homeland Security is keeping tabs on areas of resistance to their immigration enforcement and I know that these protests are not doing much except advertising our area for ICE attention. I guess we shall see what happens…
I support the rights of all legal citizens of all colors, races, religions, genders, sexual orientation, political persuasion and beliefs to protest peacefully and treat each other with respect. Our diversity is the true strength of America but only if we can come together as American citizens to acknowledge our connection and responsibility to each other.
This!!! I agree with 90% of what you are saying. Where we differ is where you find causality of the incident involving an ICE agent and a US citizen with the broader point here. Your claim that a need for increased enforcement justifies (this and perhaps future) lethal responses to protesters attempting to impede arrests is a red herring (and perhaps a number of other common fallacies in logic).
It appears from all of the evidence that I’ve seen that she was protesting but wasn’t expecting to be cornered by multiple vehicles and ICE agents. The situation likely increased her levels of anxiety within the few minutes before the incident. The officers began to circle. To me it looks like an act of intimidation as a result of her being an annoyance and not specifically because she was blocking traffic or actively protesting. Would they have arrested her or written some kind of citation? I seriously doubt it. Most likely they would have sat her down and performed more intimidation to get her to reconsider her actions.
Please consider that a local LEO could (and probably should) have been the one to confront her in this situation. If it had been the local PD, it doesn’t change anything at all. They could have fired their weapon if she responded exactly the same way. And an investigation would have ensued regardless of the causality. The only difference I can think of is a local LEO would likely have been more sensitive to protect a member of their community and more cautious about jumping to conclusions. Also, a local LEO might have been someone Good didn’t feel such a heightened level of anxiety and a reactive flight response (as in fight or flight) with.
What is valid is trump -> noem -> ICE is a perfect example of blind leading blind leading blind. Their tactics have consequences and I’m starting to see they are not the only ones responsible for this situation. trump’s supporters are too comfortable disregarding logic and can’t see past their own egos. It’s fine if you voted for him. Wrong is wrong is wrong.
I agree that local law enforcement should have been the one to arrest Good (and many, many other law-breaking protestors) however, local law enforcement is not doing diddly-squat to enforce the law when ICE is involved. They governor, the mayor and the chief of police have made it very clear that they are not there to help.
Exactly the crux of this disaster.
There is NO reason for civilians to have direct access to harangue, delay or endanger ICE agents in the course of their work. Unfortunately local law enforcement were ordered to stand down by their leadership.
These corrupt sanctuary cities have obligated themselves to not assisting ICE in any way and it is the exact reason that poor dog almost got shot. 🐶
Local LEO’s should have been on scene to provide a buffer preventing dangerous behaviour of both civilians and ice agents. They could have, for instance, enforced basic traffic laws and addressed her decision for Park her vehicle across two lanes of traffic directly in the path of ICE vehicles. But no. The dumb leadership of the fallen -formerly awesome- city of Minneapolis told their law enforcement not to police the streets and pretty much insured there would be direct confrontation between ICE and these sadly misdirected protester/agitator/observers.
I didn’t vote for him. I don’t brush off this unnecessary death. It is sad. Did the officer need to shoot? Was it a justified shooting? I’ll wait for the investigation but she should have exited her vehicle and not driven it. I’m not sure what the logical fallacies inherent in my comment were? I’d appreciate if you pointed them out. I’m capable of reasonable discourse and I’ve seen your polite disagreements. I like to get checked when I run off course….I agree a local police officer should have been at her car. But the local police were ordered to not help ICE in any way. ICE was there under federal orders so that’s why a local cop was not on scene. Not sure who’s fault that is but I think the hysterical mayor should be asked that question. Everybody blames ICE but they are carrying out a federal program from our duly-elected President. I think the ICE agents could use more training and more time off- the constant harassment and assaults they are receiving from protestors must be weighing on them.
What I expect from a full and complete investigation is a look at what lead to a response from ICE agents (all the way up the chain of command), and what lead Mr Ross to draw his weapon and fire. If he drew because he sincerely thought Good had the intent of hitting him with his car, then his actions were defensive and perhaps justified (though still not a guarantee). If he drew because he was already angry at her incessant taunting and the fact she was refusing orders, I don’t think that can be categorized as a defensive response.
You implied in previous comments that nobody intended this to happen but because Good chose to interfere with ICE operations through an act of defiance, this shooting was justified (although nobody’s fault). I appreciate you saying that the investigation will reveal the truth of the matter.
I mentioned that the investigation should include investigating decisions to send an adversarial force into communities by the president. I understand deportations need to happen. However, sending aggressive messaging followed by a gestapo type force into communities that reject enforcement is a recipe for disaster. I can’t help but think that if this wasn’t the case, you would at least have a local cop come and talk to good about parking her car in the middle of the road. Something that was not a threat or intent to harm anyone but simply an act of defiance.
“You implied in previous comments that nobody intended this to happen but because Good chose to interfere with ICE operations through an act of defiance, this shooting was justified (although nobody’s fault).”
I haven’t seen anyone suggest the shooting was justified because Good obstructed ICE agents and refused to exit her vehicle. It was her decision to accelerate toward the agent standing in front of her SUV that justified the use of lethal force.
I know it doesn’t make a difference if you’ve already bought into the narrative that this was a justified shooting because she refused to exit her vehicle and attempted to flee with officers surrounding. Still, it’s important to me to shed light on the fact that these things don’t happen in a vacuum and she was already committed to engaging in acts of defiance. In a hypothetical scenario where she did exit the vehicle (as ordered), she would in all likelihood still be here today. I don’t personally agree that the shooting was justified. But you’re entitled to your opinion.
So Farce said “I haven’t seen anyone suggest the shooting was justified because Good obstructed ICE agents ” and you respond by “I know it doesn’t make a difference if you’ve already bought into the narrative that this was a justified shooting because she refused to exit her vehicle and attempted to flee with officers surrounding.” That is why comments keep going in a circle in a nutshell.
The majority of comments that lean or conclude that the shooting (and killing) of Renee Good was justified also conclude that Ross genuinely believed that she was trying to harm him with her car. The reason why I continue to bring up the broader context is Renee Good wouldn’t have even been there if she didn’t already commit herself to protest, acts of defiance, or even breaking the law. However, there are varying degrees of criminal activity. An LEO is only justified to raise a weapon and fire upon an unarmed citizen if there is overwhelming reason to believe the person intends to harm them. Why this is confusing is because driving a vehicle was already something she was legally allowed to do. Even stopping in the middle of the road was legal up to a point. I think honking her horn or shouting may be the most illegal thing she did up until that point. However, to believe that an attempt to evade (which is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests) automatically justifies a lethal response seems especially far fetched. People often believe whatever their peer group, tribe, or belief system dictate they believe and not necessarily based on evidence and logic. I know people discredit my and other’s responses because you think I’m saying this because our peer groups (etc.) and the media tell us to. I assure you, personally am not.
Your comments typically project an aura of neutral and reasoned analysis but fall apart upon closer inspection.
Positioning her vehicle crossways in the street to impede enforcement operations was clearly illegal in multiple ways — it’s delusional to say she broke no laws.
She wasn’t shot because she was protesting — or because she was obstructing — or because she tried to flee — or whether she intended to strike the agent or not — she was shot because when she accelerated to flee there was an armed agent virtually on her bumper.
I don’t see anyone saying: “an attempt to evade…automatically justifies a lethal response….” — it doesn’t and no one is saying it does.
And I don’t see many, if any, comments saying: “Ross genuinely believed that she was trying to harm him with her car” but given the totality of the relevant objective facts that’s all he has to say — plus adding he was concerned for the safety of others.
But keep building rhetorical strawmen if that’s your thing.
This is what I said: “Even stopping in the middle of the road was legal up to a point.” Meaning if she was making a u-turn, it would have likely been a completely legal move. Of course stopping there for an extended period of time was illegal. But it was illegal like throwing trash out your car is illegal. It’s not even close to someone climbing up the walls of the capital building with the intent of breaking in. Get where I’m going?
Also, the broader point was you people keep saying she was TRYING to hit him with her car. What I see is Ross was actively circling and intimidating her. He was the aggressor in that situation. I don’t deny that all LEOs have authority to do just that. However, if someone attempts to escape, it doesn’t necessarily mean they have intent to harm the officer. And if the officer might be harmed by that action, the onus is on him to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that was in fact the case, and he was in fact in danger. I’m saying this as a matter of opinion but it shouldn’t automatically be considered justified because the officer says they are in danger. It should be both that he thought she was going to harm him and the evidence overwhelmingly proves that she would have harmed him if he didn’t shoot her.
“Even stopping in the middle of the road was legal up to a point.”
No — she was attempting to obstruct an enforcement operation — at that point she wasn’t exercising any constitutional right — spin it any way you want but there was nothing legal about her actions from that point forward.
I’m also not one of “you people” and I’ve never said she was trying to hit the agent — I think she was trying to escape from the situation she created — but in doing so she created a potential use of deadly force situation.
She was ignoring commands to stop and was accelerating a 4,000+ lb vehicle forward with the agent virtually at her bumper but he was the aggressor?
As noted by another commenter you keep spinning in circles which makes it impossible to have a meaningful discussion.
But since everyone’s entitled to their opinion I’ll respect your right to be wrong.
You really just need to educate yourself a bit on the law regarding self defense.
Her intent is irrelevant as she is not the one being charged with anything. If she were alive and being charged, intent would matter.
The law does not require anyone to “overwhelmingly prove” they would have been harmed if they didn’t use lethal force. Quite the opposite. The prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not reasonable for the person who used lethal force to believe that they or someone else was in imminent fear of great bodily injury or death. That’s it. Full stop. If you believe it was reasonable for Ross to think he might be seriously injured by the car accelerating toward him, then the shooting was justified. It is just that simple.
The threat doesn’t even need to be real. For instance if someone points a fake gun at you, you are not actually in any danger, but it is reasonable to believe you are and use lethal force.
It was me, not Farce, and yes — it’s pretty frustrating. But maybe that’s the point?
Again, it was her decision to accelerate toward the agent standing in front of her SUV that justified his use of lethal force.
The agent’s reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death at that exact moment is what justified his use of lethal force.
That’s what I think and that’s what the law considers the justified use of lethal force in this situation.
Got it? Or should I continue to repeat myself over and over and over?
Go ahead and repeat yourself. These things will be investigated and a jury should ultimately decide (meaning he should face some type of criminal prosecution). I personally don’t agree that he fired because he feared serious bodily injury. It’s reasonable to conclude that the idea of getting hit was factored into his decision. But I think the more critical component is not how he felt, but what led him to feel that way. The simple components of my conclusions are he reacted with a ‘fight’ response, and she reacted with a ‘flight’ response. In any normal situation where the aggressor is giving a pardon when the victim faces the maximum penalty, we should all have questions in our minds. So go ahead and tell me you acknowledge all of this and think that I’m brainwashed.
It’s ludicrous to say: “the idea of getting hit” was part of the agent’s decision to fire but he didn’t “fear serious bodily injury” — yeah, who would think getting run over by a vehicle weighing over 4,000 lbs carries a risk of serious injury?
You’ve convinced yourself the agent should face criminal prosecution but given the known objective facts of this case no ethical prosecutor would conclude they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the agent committed a crime.
The odds of her heirs prevailing in a civil suit where the evidentiary standard is less stringent are much better.
But once you’re directly engaged with law enforcement — if the goal is to avoid similar tragedies — the message should be: comply with the lawful orders of law enforcement and/or submit non-violently to arrest.
Let’s just say for a moment that we 100% agree that Ross feared bodily injury. But we also conclude that Good did not intent to hit him with her car. If it’s proven in a court of law that he was not in harms way, wouldn’t shooting at a fleeing protester be a crime? I’m just basing that on what I understand to be to protocol of ICE. LEOs cannot independently decide that someone is a risk to officers or the public when someone decides to evade arrest and start shooting. The sticking point is specifically if she was in fact going to hit him with her car (with neglect or intent) and not just that he says she was.
LEOs cannot independently decide that someone is a risk to officers or the public when someone decides to evade arrest and start shooting. The sticking point is specifically if she was in fact going to hit him with her car (with neglect or intent) and not just that he says she was.
Actually, that’s not how use-of-force law works. Officers are absolutely allowed to assess threats in real time and when someone is fleeing, firing, or using a vehicle to evade, courts have consistently ruled that deadly force may be justified. The statute doesn’t require proof that she was going to hit him only that he “reasonably believed she might.” That’s the legal threshold, not hindsight speculation..
“Let’s just say for a moment that we 100% agree that Ross feared bodily injury”
What you are just not comprehending is that as soon as you say that, it is over! Once you agree to that, no charges can be filed as the shooting is legally justified.
I’m just going to respond here because there’s a couple comments above this. I get that the majority of investigations and reviews into LEOs killing both criminal and non criminal persons don’t typically proceed with prosecution. I AM NOT a lawyer, nor would I want to be for these cases. I am however personally well aware of the risks when dealing with an approaching officer. I was raised with family members that understood that profiling put certain members of the community at greater risk. This is not justice in my opinion, but it is the de facto interpretation of the law.
So it’s justified. And all the cops in the room will argue that point until they’re blue in the face. But I need to ask. How is it that so many people do walk away from this exact situation, and live another day to tell their story. It is my opinion that this is because some cops use better judgement than others. Some cops care more than others. No different than a doctor or a school teacher. But in this case, can mean life or death for a member of the community.
I’m sorry you’re incapable of grasping the law concerning justified lethal force by law enforcement officers.
I don’t think the problem is that I don’t grasp the law. I’m saying that in situations where both perspectives are valid, you need a jury to decide. Mainly, the point people opposed to your view are trying to convey is: we would completely agree with you if she wasn’t in the process of turning away from Ross and towards the only available opening. Also, we would completely agree if she was involved in a higher degree of criminal activity (ie. brandishing a weapon, 211 in CA, etc.). Again, not specific to common interpretation of the law but how I would expect the law to be interpreted.
The sign that reads, “Law is our only ruler”. You are so close!
All I see in the photos are groups of people that are well behaved and marching in protest of the ICE Agents shooting Renee Good. This is America and the last time I looked freedom of speech was still legal. I wish that the shooting never happened, but it did. I think it is time to lay it to rest.
Feel free to stage a protest to these protestations of the protest.
See how that works out….
Like most protests it will accomplish nothing but virtue signalling, (and most endearing and highly beneficial some singing and walking. I love that part!)
This was written by someone, not me. But sums it up pretty well, what was she thinking?
I’m a mother, so I’m going to comment right now. I will say this exactly the way a mother thinks it, raw, direct, and without pretending this is complicated. A 37-year-old woman. Three kids. Middle of a work week. The father of those children is dead. She is the parent left. The one job she has above every cause, every protest, every headline, is getting home to her kids.
And what is she doing instead?
She’s out of state (other reports claim she lives there), in the street, in her car, blocking federal agents who are doing their job. Not alone! Her partner is right there filming her like this is some brave little documentary moment. Around them: sirens blaring, people yelling, pure chaos, manufactured chaos, so agents can’t do their lawful duty.
Her window is down. She hears the orders. She understands the orders. She ignores the orders.
Then she puts the car in reverse.
Still doesn’t comply.
Then she puts it in drive, NOT park! She moves forward into the agent.
That’s not “confusion.”
That’s not “panic.”
That’s decision after decision after decision.
Now put yourself in the agent’s shoes for half a second. A driver is already in an unlawful act! refusing commands in a hostile, chaotic scene, and now that driver uses a vehicle to move toward you. You get a split second. You don’t get the luxury of “Maybe she’s just stressed.” You have to assume the worst, you have to think of protecting other people like the partner at the window, because if you assume the best and you’re wrong, you don’t go home or someone else.
So the agent fires after she makes an intentional and aggressive move toward him, because he has no idea what her intentions are, and she just demonstrated she’s willing to escalate.
Now… imagine her three kids. At school. Sitting there like any other day. Not knowing their mother is out playing street-hero games for criminals in the middle of a work week, with the two adults responsible for them!
She didn’t think about them.
She didn’t think, “If I get arrested, who picks my babies up?”
She didn’t think, “If I get hurt, who raises them?”
She didn’t think, “If I die, they have nobody.”
She thought about protecting criminals.
She thought about interfering with federal agents.
She thought about the camera.
She thought about the crowd.
She thought about the moment.
There is no amount of evidence, money, tears on TV, or news spin that can make this make sense.
As a mother: NOTHING about this makes sense.
At minimum, she knew her actions could get her arrested. At minimum. And she still chose it. She chose strangers. She chose chaos. She chose lawlessness.
Make it make sense, because the only thing I see is three kids who just got abandoned by the only parent they had left, not by accident… but by a series of deliberate choices.
https://x.com/sues86453/status/2010457481315500193
Nobody is surprised that the trump supporters and defenders of the ICE gestapo agent need to deflect through the demonization of someone different who is for whatever reason seen as less than human. This discussion is not about the successes and failures of Renee Good. You can have an opinion about those things. But you can’t justify murder by saying the victim made poor choices in their life! Yes, acknowledge that she was a daughter, a sister, a mother. Acknowledge that she was an American who was exercising an act of defiance. An act that perhaps angered an agent that also has the ability to make poor choices in HIS life. Let the investigation and justice for all involved play out people!!!
And you say (and I agree) let the investigation win out. But at the same time labeling this incident a “murder” shows you really don’t need or want it to play out since you’ve already come to a conclusion on the matter based off the limited evidence you have (edited videos from FB)
I do draw my own conclusions. However, phrasing something as “murder” was really just to say that when one human kills another human, the act shouldn’t automatically be justified because the victim made poor choices.
Agreed, and I think law enforcement uses “Homeside” as the general term before any conclusions are drawn.
Homicide is the taking of a life.
Murder implies intent: men’s rea.
Accelerating a deadly weapon (SUV) towards a federal agent when you’re being legally detained is not “an act of defiance.” It’s a serious crime that can result in deadly consequences.
Yes.
ICE is merely doing the job the name stands for….Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This means they are the agency that enforces the Immigration laws on the books, that were passed by Congress. I find it difficult to understand why people are against enforcing laws. Don’t like the laws….have Congress re-write them.
Renee Good was impeding ICE from preforming their lawful duties to the point of threatening the life of an ICE Agent, that was forced to make a split second decision. Sadly, this lady definitely played an extraordinarily stupid game and she won a participation toe tag ribbon…
No she wasn’t, and Ross made the wrong decision.
Stating your opinion isn’t a rebuttal. Do you have any facts to contribute to your opinion?
If the laws Congress passes are disregarded, ignored, and/or undone by the Orange Guy, then what? This Supreme Court is in lock step toward a King’s rule. And believing there are any SORT of laws on the books not threatened with this present administration that resemble an “Of the People” Constitutional Republic is in (just my opinion, here) rather iffy.
When has immigration law not been disregarded, ignored or undone by each President in turn? That is how it came to this point. The two political powers that be- Democrats and Republicans- postured over it for decades, trading accusations, but did nothing because each derives benefit from tolerating illegal immigration and ignoring the law. Congress did nothing. The courts just made it worse and the public bought into it, complaining about the consequences but refusing the hard choices.
Repeating silly propaganda buzz words don’t fix anything.
What’s really sad about all this, is all the people thinking the shooting was justified and Renee Good deserved to die. If that is the thinking of the majority of the American public, then America has lost its moral compass.
Though after the election of Donald Trump I felt it was losing it already.
I think both had a part to play in the unfortunate incident, among other outlying factors. What’s sad is most of the country has already judged, one way or the other, on this incident without allowing time for a formal investigation or trial. But that’s the mob mentality we’ve created with social media.
I mostly agree with you.
in this case though, I feel I have seen enough footage of the incident to form an opinion on the legality of the shooting. I will factor in any new evidence that appears and be open to changing my opinion if warranted.
A possibility to consider is that he was videotaping at the time (which he should not have been doing while in front of her vehicle) and not paying attention, when she started pulling forward he was startled and over reacted.
You are grasping at straws my friend.
There is no law against videotaping and it is likely even allowed by policy as they don’t have body cams.
As far as not paying attention, it is not a legal requirement to be hyper-aware when walking in front of a stopped vehicle as the legal burden is on the driver to only proceed when it is safe to do so.
Good saw the officer… she looked right at him… and then she decided to rapidly accelerate while multiple people were in danger of being struck by the vehicle. THAT is a crime.
Now, if your point is that perhaps Ross could have done things differently to avoid the situation… absolutely! I am sure Ross would love to be able to change some things to avoid the situation he ended up in.
But, if your point is to proffer these as elements that would make the shooting legally unjustified, well in that case you are out of luck as they hold no legal relevance.
I am saying he violated policy numerous times. You keep both hands free at all times, you don’t walk in front of vehicles in these situations.
And not one of this presumed defects gave Good the right to drive her car into him.
While you feel free to blame anyone who doesn’t march lock step with your opinion, have you ever thought that the extreme rhetoric of blame you insist on encourages protesters to be more and more aggressive, never questioning their own risky behavior? You blame Trump and shove everyone into the same pigeon hole for your blaming but constantly egging people on has contributed mightily to where this stupid aggression inevitably ends.
“And not one of this presumed defects gave Good the right to drive her car into him.”
Except she didn’t. Got any proof of that?
Didn’t think so.
Ross over reacted to the situation, and you can’t spin it into anything else.
Bottom line: Those ICE agents escalated the whole situation into what it became. “Get the fuck out of the car!” Instead of just saying please move your car. Would have been a simple solution, but no they have to act like bullying thugs, which they are.
This is just part of a bigger picture and that is how these thugs are acting and the Trump administration enabling them.
A picture is worth a thousand words…
This crew shot wasn’t that difficult to produce…
It shows Ross being hit by goods vehicle…
You’ll say it doesn’t, but it definitely does…
What I don’t often see as a discussion point is regarding ICE not serving as the typical law enforcement for the general public. I don’t judge them differently or hold them to a higher standard. But they operate under a completely different framework from other local, state, or even other federal LEOs (I’ve dealt with federal officers in the parks, national forest, and BLM). I feel like we are looking past the reality that citizens are not familiar with what to expect when encountering ICE agents, and ICE agents are not familiar with how to deal with the general public. I again point to causality originating at trump, noem, and the administration. I would hope that the public holistically supports ratcheting down the rhetoric so this situation doesn’t continue to escalate and cause unnecessary injuries and death to Americans. Or do people really want to normalize ‘the crazy people deserve to be killed by federal agents’?
I would argue that ICE’s mission has not changed much over the years, although the task has certainly grown larger after four years of Biden’s open borders. It is the response to ICE that has radically changed and is the cause of the current conflicts.
I don’t think (and didn’t say) either has changed significantly. To clarify, it is trump that decides that ICE should be used to intimidate people. He wants to intimidate anyone who wishes to put guardrails around his power. He wants to intimidate people that don’t agree with his tactics. And he wants to normalize this type of arrogance and display of power. As for the agents, their job is the same. However, sending a huge force into communities that have a well established desire to reject the roundup of illegals is creating the chaos that leads to these tragic incidents. Tragic for the public and for the ICE agents involved.
“To clarify, it is trump that decides that ICE should be used to intimidate people. He wants to intimidate anyone who wishes to put guardrails around his power.”
Intimidate? No — Trump and ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) are enforcing U.S. immigration laws.
“Communities that have a well established desire to reject the roundup of illegals” should familiarize themselves with the U.S. Constitution and the Supremacy Clause.
Are you saying trump’s tactics are not intimidating? I think data concerning the number of illegals coming to the US in 2025 is enough to prove this point. These tactics also intimidate regular citizens who (for reasons entirely their own) wish to not have illegals rounded up.
That leads me to your second point. Citizens have a right to not agree with how enforcement is taking place in their community. Citizens have a right to protest. The issue I have is we shouldn’t say if someone chooses to protest, they should expect the most extreme response from their federal government. They should not expect that response. And they should never stop fighting to change the law or officials in power if that is what they choose to do.
“I think data concerning the number of illegals coming to the US in 2025 is enough to prove this point.”
Trump’s law enforcement tactics are effective.
Right, which is actually the only thing you people really care about. 🤪
Terms like “you people” aren’t helpful. Please try to argue points not assume that the person you are talking to has a premapped set of opinions that you despise.
I agree with your core point, ICE does not operate like typical local or state law enforcement, and most Americans have little familiarity with how ICE encounters differ from ordinary policing. That gap creates confusion on both sides, civilians don’t know what to expect, and ICE agents aren’t primarily trained for routine public-facing interactions. That misunderstanding alone increases the risk of escalation.
Where I disagree is on causality. The conditions driving today’s tensions did not originate with Trump, Noem, or the current administration. They were largely set in motion under the Biden administration’s open border policies, which dramatically expanded encounters between ICE and the general public by signaling reduced enforcement, blurred priorities, and inconsistent consequences. That policy environment strained the system and placed ICE in more volatile, ambiguous situations.
Compounding that problem is systemic bias in major news outlets, which routinely frame ICE encounters through a political or moral lens rather than an operational one. That coverage fuels public mistrust, distorts expectations, and primes people to view ICE agents as illegitimate or hostile actors before any facts are known and that’s a dangerous dynamic in real-world encounters.
I fully agree that rhetoric needs to be ratcheted down. Normalizing the idea that “undesirable” or “unstable” people somehow deserve lethal force from federal agents is reckless and corrosive. But if we want fewer injuries and deaths, we need to be honest about the policy signals and media narratives that created today’s environment and agree that there is a huge mess left by the previous administration that needs cleaning up and it’s not going to be perfect or easy.
These are fair points but elected officials with power and authority should have the largest percentage of onus. I don’t buy the narrative that Biden is responsible because a lack of attention and resources towards enforcement during his administration. I also think that particular pendulum can swing either direction regardless of the administration in power. There is a valid conversation occurring across the country concerning the type of workers and what social services are available to them. In my line of work, I have to compete with people that live in and out of the United States. To me it’s no secret that narratives like these are designed to sew contempt, mistrust, and hatred for people who are different (and a party who’s platform is acceptance and compassion for those different). Giving yet another advantage to corrupt officials in power.
I also don’t think our time is well spent trying to grapple with why the media reports are crafted in a certain message, style, or tone. This is America and they are owned by larger corporations. That’s enough for me to use it as a lead but draw my own conclusions.
I think the shooting was justified and I do not think Renee Good deserved to die.
The two do not go hand in hand.
Ah but the often repeated “deserved” is the least rational but most often used of qualifications. The most awful human does not “deserve” extra judicial execution if the principles of the law apply while the same principles of law apply to the most saintly of humans.
This death serves to expose that most people are shy on principle and long on identifying. One of the interesting things is the number of people outraged to the point of stroking out over this woman’s death while remaining detached when one woman was murdered by an illegal immigrant. Or visa versa. It must mean that a whole lot of people simply see themselves protesting by doing what Good did. Or what agents did.
I don’t think Good “deserved to die.” However, in my opinion, Good’s actions justified the use of lethal force by the ICE agent.
I am seeing a lot of FAFO comments. And like I said, agent Ross had two choices and he chose the wrong one. His past actions show his inability to make rational decisions.
I would argue that those saying FAFO are simply stating that actions have consequences, although in a rather harsh or joking manner.
While I am sure some people legitimately do think she deserved what she got, I doubt that is the majority of those who think the shooting was justified.
I think most of us are disheartened at the whole situation and truly wish the driver would have taken different actions that did not leave the officer having to make a split second choice to use lethal force.
I actually feel very bad for Ms Good as I think she was a victim of the rhetoric being so haphazardly thrown around by the left that encourages this type of illegal behavior.
But he made the wrong choice which goes to show what their attitude is.
If he hadn’t fired what would have happened? Nothing. He shot into a moving vehicle which continued on endangering others, what if a mother was getting her child out of her car where that pole was? He had her plate number they could have easily just followed her.
This is the problem. There first choice is to react violently.
What if the officer standing by the side tried to play Rambo like Ross did in a previous incident and tried reaching in the car to shut it off and Ross shot him instead.
The whole incident occurred because the ICE agents instead of continuing on, stopped and escalated things.
It should be ingrained in their training that de-escalation is your first priority.
Made the wrong choice by what measure? Simply because you say it was wrong? Did Good make the wrong choice in your opinion?
Every single law enforcement use of force could be avoided if they just “continued on.” You don’t really think that is a legitimate argument do you?
And no, ICEs first priority is not de-escalation, it is the enforcement of immigration law, which sometimes necessitates escalation of force by its very nature.
What if they had just continued on past Good and kept doing what ever it was they were doing?
They had that option and didn’t take it. Instead stopping and demanding she get out of her car.
Like I said that is their mindset. Escalate.
What if Good had a hold on the officers arm that was in her window, and wouldn’t let go, intending to hold it and drag the officer along while she fled…
It wasn’t until about the time Ross fired that the other officers arm finally emerged from the vehicle…
Did that make her let go…???
Who knows what kind of struggle was going on inside of the vehicle, between Good and the other officer who had his arm in the window…???
We just don’t know what her intentions were, and, unfortunately, we never will…
Because “ICE agents instead of continuing on, stopped and escalated things….”
Did you miss the part where her vehicle was parked perpendicular across the road? She was provoking escalation, and Becca was there to agitate and document. She literally hit him with her car, and you still think he was in the wrong? 🙄
No, she did not hit him with her car.
Yes, she definitely did…
Photo evidence here…
https://kymkemp.com/2026/01/12/two-days-three-towns-protests-in-northern-humboldt-over-immigration-enforcement-and-minneapolis-shooting/#comment-1895511
You have no evidence that she did not hit him with her car…
How many choices did Good have…???
Like 8 or 9 billion…???
Did she choose the wrong one…???
What inabilities do Good’s past actions show…???
She sure moved around a lot …
“His past actions show his inability to make rational decisions”
Source?
Or are you just making things up. Again.
Hanging on to a moving car, busting out the rear window and reaching in while trying to taser driver. Finally letting go and ending up with multiple stitches.
You think that was rational thinking?
If you’re coming from the premise that ” she did not hit him with her car” I am not compelled to engage, because your bias has reduced you to lies.
How bad was the bad guy he was trying so hard to arrest…???
Why aren’t you addressing that…???
You realize that’s an oxymoron.
I assume you are referring to “harsh or joking?”
Not an oxymoron as I used OR not AND. Even if I said “harsh and joking” that could certainly describe dark humor anyway. Have you never seen a comedian go after a heckler in a harsh way? Still funny, right?
Saying the shooting was justified but saying she didn’t deserve to die.
Of course it isn’t. Whether or not it was justified is ultimately a matter of law and factual events and evidence. Whether or not she deserved it depends on the opinion of the person judging (and for some of us, her intentions.)
Everything I’ve seen suggests the shooting was justified. I don’t know if she deserved it, because I don’t know if it was her intention to strike the officer with the vehicle.
I think you’re just mad that others defused your carefully chosen, inflammatory, loaded word.
Are we all sure this isn’t a rally to increase social security payouts?
Where’s all the young people? I count 2! AND THEY CANT EVEN VOTE!!
Teachers and other government retirees already achieved with the Social Security Fairness Act signed into law on January 5, 2025.
Social Security Benefits have risen 30% in the last 7 years… And the President increased the Standard Deduction by $7000 per person over 66, so our taxes will decrease as well…
Thanks!
2 choices. Believe the Renee Good video, or believe your lying eyes. I realize your channels don’t show her wheel turned to the right, and the shooter leaning into her car, but…there it is.
The third option: (my option)
You acknowledge that short, selectively framed videos can mislead, and you wait for full, verified evidence instead of outsourcing your judgment to either a partisan clip or your first emotional reaction.
The adult position is: My eyes see something, but they don’t see everything. Until timelines, angles, audio, and context are fully disclosed, pretending certainty is just choosing a side, not pursuing truth.
Just to clarify, one does not need “‘certainty” to declare the shooting justified.
One only needs certainty (beyond a reasonable doubt) to declare the shooting unjustified… from a legal standpoint that is.
For me, I think a few carefully selected video clips on social media creates at least a wee bit of reasonable doubt.
It creates a lot of doubt, because it’s intentional to clip out or hide information. Isn’t that what counts as contempt in court? Show the w-h-o-l-e video, even if it’s 30 minutes long. All of it. Make it available and decide on the critical footage afterwards. Yeah, I know that’s a bit of a pipe dream.
I am always in favor of more evidence and entire video clips, however, what transpired before what we have already seen is likely irrelevant. Unless you have video of Ross saying he is going to get in front of the vehicle and take that bitch out if she moves, it just doesn’t matter.
All that matters is if Ross reasonably feared great bodily injury for himself or anyone else at the time he decided to shoot. Thats it! Everything else is fluff.
You are misunderstanding my point…
If you have a “little doubt” that Ross reasonably feared injury when he shot and you were on the jury, you would have to vote not-guilty.
You would have to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross did not reasonably fear injury when he shot to put forth a guilty plea.
Thats how the law works.
You need certainty to vote guilty, any uncertainty and you are required to acquit… ie. say the shooting was justified.
Exactly.
Thanks again, Hugh.
It doesn’t matter which way she turned the wheel after the officer had decided it was necessary to shoot. What matters is what was happened at that decision point… and what was happening is that she was accelerating hard enough to spin the tires and the wheels were pointed slightly left, going straight at the officer.
Mind you, what direction the wheels were pointed probably isn’t very relevant as I doubt the officer could even see the wheels from his position. He could definitely hear the engine roar and see the vehicle start heading straight at him though.
For real. The direction of the wheels bear no relevance.
The people that are hell bent on obsessing over the direction of her wheels are lost in the weeds. And based on the inflammatory and ignorant remarks still coming from Democrat leadership and mainstream news who are obviously incapable of admitting they could have called it wrong despite contrary evidence double down on their flimsy excuses, demonstrate why it’s a hopeless possibly that that view point will ever change. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it. 😆
What stubborn people who argue for her bad decision to flee are ignoring is that the ONLY point of view in use of force is that of the agent in that .5 second exchange. And only about .3 seconds from the instant that Honda started moving forward. That’s like half an eye blink.
Analysing a super slow motion breakdown frame by frame is not logical. The perceived threat felt by the agent can’t be decoded frame by frame at -200 speed, crying about shots #2 and #3! That kind of thinking does not consider the split second timing. And it comes off as obnoxious Monday morning quarterbacking like they are soooo much smarter and intuitive than the guy trained for the position. Wtf.
This agent has 2 decades military and immigration I dare any of the indignant know it alls here to achieve that record. ICE agents are human. Engaged in careers that enforce laws established by our constitution. The dehumanization and minimization of the skill set of ICE employees is a big part of the danger, why we got here, and is reprehensible coming from the (pretend) party of inclusion. 🤮
The down votes tell me who the hypocrites are.
Amen…
Removing the trash that came into our country under Biden is the main reason Trump was elected .Promises made,promises kept.
Having so much of a hard time login in I forgot what I was going to post. But will make a stab at this, and say no hate, no fear stand up, and melt ICE. VOTE
If during the Jan 6 assault the Capitol police had employed the same metrics of interpretation as that employed by today’s police-state Trump Administration, a good number of his rioters would have died that day.
Exactly.
A “good” number…???
Whatever do you mean, exactly…???
I don’t remember any January 6th protesters erratically nearly running over anyone with their vehicles…
Well said.
I beg to differ…
That’s actually quite awful to have said…
“Grace” seems to be a misnomer..
That is “hyperbole, an exaggeration, or a mistake”…
Should one ask oneself, “Is it normal…???”
The only “good” number of people to die at the hands of another on any particular day, is zero, Kym…
Unless of course, you would disagree…
Unless of course, one is advocating for a “good” number other of people, other than zero, to have died at the hands of others, on January 6th…
Unless you are implying that the death of a “good number” of people at the hands of another is “good”, and not “bad”, which would actually be advocating for violence, which would be a commenting violation, wouldn’t it…???
Define, please, “a good number”, in this instance, if you think it’s other than zero…
Thank you…
Apples and oranges.
How fortunate we are to exist at a time when “the peace that surpasses all understanding” awaits any who seek it
AI Overview (😉)
+6
Yes, many Vedic traditions state that self-realization (Moksha) is easier in the Kali Yuga, not because the age is inherently good, but because the primary path for this era—chanting God’s holy name (Hari Nama Kirtan) and devotional service (Bhakti Yoga)—is simple and highly effective, requiring less rigorous practices than meditation (Satya Yuga) or sacrifices (Treta Yuga). While Kali Yuga is characterized by conflict and moral decline, it’s seen as a golden age for sincere spiritual seekers due to the accessibility of this powerful, direct path to liberation, even with short lifespans and fewer favorable conditions.