re: The definitive video showing Good's vehicle striking the agent

Lol

quote:

---

Shoot the tires! Drive honey drive!!

---

I posted receipts and asked him to post his. He gone.

quote:

---

I just dont' think

---

quote:

---

I just dont' think

---

quote:

---

I just dont' think

---

quote:

---

I just dont' think

---

quote:

---

I just dont' think

---

quote:

---

1. If her intention was to run over him, why didn't she do it when he TWICE walked directly in front of the vehicle with no chance to escape? Why would she have waited to run him down?

---

I don’t think she was trying to do that, but it doesn’t matter what her intention was, and she can’t tell us what it was.

quote:

---

2. Why did she initially BACK UP before trying to drive away? Could it be that she was intentionally trying to AVOID hitting him? What other reason do you think there could be for her backing up before driving away?

---

To flee?

Irrelevant ice fella doesn't have time to contimplate her idiocy.

It's truly why clowns play what if

Or ask irrelevant questions.

At the end of the day if you are determining I want to go home to my family or I need to figure out her intentions.

She get three to the face and neck

quote:

---

It is my understanding that part of their job is to DE-ESCALATE the situation. They, in fact, ESCALATED the situation by rushing her car and trying to pull her out. The two officers complicated the situation by giving her conflicting orders. One told her to drive away while the other grabbed her door handle to yank her out.



That’s non-responsive to my question. You’re big on people answering your questions right? I will restate mine:

quote:
What law of the United States did the officer violate?

---

Federal Regulations on Force and Escalation

Minimum Force Required: Under 8 CFR § 287.8, immigration officers are legally required to use the "minimum non-deadly force necessary".
Conditional Escalation: Agents are only permitted to escalate to higher levels of force when it is "objectively reasonable" based on the actions or apparent intentions of the suspect.
De-escalation Mandate: Current ICE Use of Force policies (updated as of 2023 and continuing through 2026) instruct officers to prioritize de-escalation techniques and only use force when no "safe and feasible alternative" is available.

Agents must follow federal regulations requiring force to be "objectively reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government, generally requiring a warrant based on probable cause
. It ensures security in persons, houses, papers, and effects, applying to government actions, not private parties. Warrants must describe the place and items to be searched/seized

Key Legal and Policy Constraints on ICE Escalation

Minimum Necessary Force: DHS policy stipulates that agents must use the minimum, non-deadly force needed to accomplish their mission, escalating only when warranted.
Objectively Reasonable Standard: The Supreme Court mandates that all law enforcement force—deadly or not—must meet an "objective reasonableness" standard, meaning actions must be justified by the situation.

quote:

---

2. Why did she initially BACK UP before trying to drive away? Could it be that she was intentionally trying to AVOID hitting him? What other reason do you think there could be for her backing up before driving away?



To flee?

---

Agree. To flee, not to run over the officer.

Your assumption is well .....

Maybe she was backing up to get an acceleration to kill him.

Naw that can't be

She went there, and found out!

C'mon people, these paid instigators are BAD for the country, period.

She put her life, and the officers life, in danger, and she lost.....thats the way I see it.

Lol doesn't matter two days 25 years.