re: Best video of shooting. 2nd and 3rd shots through the open window.

SCOTUS ruling from pg. 27 of the pinned thread at top. Credit to OU Guy, painful as it is to credit anything from a dirt burglar.

quote:

---

SCOTUS Plumhoff v. Rickard 2014
9-0 decision
Justice Alito writes:
“It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”

---

ote]

Well said.

Here's a lesson. Bottom line is, find a job that pays you to do something productive in life. Agitating is not a profession. You are a stain on the country.

quote:

---

Here’s your bitch assed side coming through again.

She was part of an organized group that was attempting to impede federal law enforcement. What name would you rather call it?

---

Someone obstructing federal law enforcement. Words have meaning, particularly legal terms.

Any rational person looking at the situation wouldn't view what this unarmed woman in an SUV did as terrorism. She wasn't attacking ICE agents trapped in the snow as Noem ludicrously claimed at first.

In this case, Good was blocking one lane of traffic
(enough to obstruct federal law enforcement), but she was waving the ICE agents through to pass her. She wasn't threatening anyone.

Here's the law on domestic terrorism:

Based on what is publicly known and applying the legal definition, no — Ms. Good did not commit domestic terrorism.
Here’s the clear, legal reasoning.
1. Domestic terrorism requires intent
Under 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), domestic terrorism requires all of the following:
A dangerous act violating criminal law
Intent to:
intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or
influence government policy by intimidation or coercion, or
affect government conduct by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
Occurring primarily in the United States
The intent element is decisive.
2. Nothing publicly known shows terrorism intent
As of now, there is no evidence that Ms. Good:
Sought to intimidate the public
Intended to coerce government policy
Intended to affect government conduct through violence
Acted as part of an ideological or political campaign
Even if someone were:
arguing with officers,
fleeing,
resisting,
blocking a roadway,
those actions do not equal terrorism under federal law.
3. Victim conduct ? terrorism
Domestic terrorism law is aimed at perpetrators of violence, not victims of law-enforcement encounters.
Courts are extremely cautious about:
retroactively labeling a deceased person a “terrorist”
especially without clear ideological motive or planning
Absent that, the label is legally indefensible.
4. What the law would actually consider
If prosecutors believed wrongdoing occurred (and that is not established), the universe of possible legal characterizations would be things like:
traffic violations
obstruction or interference
resisting law enforcement
None of those are terrorism.
They do not even come close.
Bottom line
? Ms. Good did not commit domestic terrorism
? There is no factual or legal basis for that label
? Terrorism requires provable coercive or ideological intent, which is absent here
?? Using the term in this context would be political rhetoric, not law

Oh no! Not through an open window!


LEO are trained to shoot until the threat is neutralized.


None of this happens if she obeys commands

Positioning of the agent who fired the weapon is irrelevant. If she had torched off a 9mm round over his head and was driving off with the gun in her possession, they certainly would have shot her. She had committed an aggravated assault against a police officer and was still in possession of the deadly weapon used in the assault. They had no idea what her intentions were after driving the car forward in the state of mind she was in. She could have done further harm to them or other agents.

quote:

---

SirWinston

---

You think you could’ve turned her back?

The problem with that analysis is that the officer in front of the vehicle does not know which way the car is going to go.

Look at his position wrt the car and the direction the wheels are turned at that point.

From that situation the sound of an engine revving up would absolutely put him squarely in front of the oncoming vehicle. He has no time to wait and see that she has turned the wheels to the the right, and he would barely be touched by the car.

The woman put him in the position of having a gun pointed at his head and beginning to squeeze the trigger - only to find that she had a blank in position to fire - he cannot take that chance - any human survival response would be to eliminate the threat.

And in this officer's situation, he has already been 'conditioned' by these 'protesters' that they will indeed run over officers in their way.

My first impression upon seeing the video is that he 'probably' should not have shot. But then I noticed the direction the cars wheels were turned at the instant this crisis initiated. SHE may not have 'intended' to kill him, or even harm him - but her ACTIONs and her already displayed disposition to not give a shite about doing the 'right thing' is what doomed her.

FAFO in operation.

she FO'ed.

For those interested, here are the relevant DHS guidelines:

Yes — under current Department of Homeland Security (DHS) use-of-force and tactical policies, officers and agents are generally supposed to avoid stepping in front of a vehicle or placing themselves in its path to try to stop it. DHS policies emphasize officer safety, public safety, and minimizing unnecessary risk, and placing oneself in front of a moving vehicle is explicitly discouraged. ?
U.S. Customs and Border Protection +1
Here’s how the policy language and training guidance address this:
?? 1. DHS use-of-force doctrine
DHS’s use-of-force standards require that:
Force, including deadly force, must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Deadly force cannot be used solely to stop a fleeing suspect or to prevent escape unless there is a reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. ?
Department of Homeland Security
?? 2. Tactical positioning around vehicles
Specific DHS guidance (e.g., Customs and Border Protection and related directives) states that officers/agents should:
Avoid standing directly in front of or behind a subject vehicle, and
Not place their body in the path of a moving vehicle to block it. ?
U.S. Customs and Border Protection +1
The reasoning is both safety and tactical — physically blocking a vehicle exposes the officer to serious risk and limits available safe options if the vehicle moves unexpectedly.
?? 3. Deadly force and moving vehicles
DHS policy also incorporates strict guidance on shooting at vehicles:
Agents are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle unless the use of deadly force is otherwise justified under the policy (e.g., imminent threat to life).
Before using deadly force against a moving vehicle’s operator, the danger to others and the viability of less risky options must be considered. ?
Department of Homeland Security
?? Bottom line
Yes — it is contrary to DHS tactical and use-of-force policy for officers to place themselves in front of a vehicle in an attempt to stop it. The guidance encourages tactics that minimize risk and avoid putting officers directly in the path of a vehicle — and deadly force cannot be justified simply because a subject is trying to flee.