Videos Contradict Trump Administration Account of ICE Shooting in Minneapolis
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agen...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_poin...
The precedent for which disciplinary action will be taken has not yet been set.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/09/us/portland-oregon-border-pat...
1. avoidance: duty to retreat: You must attempt to retreat or avoid the confrontation if it is safe and possible to do so without increasing danger.
2. innocence (non-aggressor): You must not be the initial aggressor or have provoked the incident.
3. imminence: The threat must be immediate and underway (or about to begin imminently)
4. proportionality: The force used must match the threat level without excess.
5. reasonableness: Your belief in the necessity of deadly force must be reasonable based on the facts known to you at the time.
2. Not relevant as the police officer was being followed and harassed by the motorist and others while attempting to do his job.
3. The police officer was standing in front of the vehicle, unable to see the direction of his tires. He did see the vehicle was shifted into forward and rapidly accelerated. Watch video of the vehicle continuing to accelerate after the shot and then crash down the road a ways.
4. This is probably the strongest element. The police officer had a large vehicle accelerating at him and hit him, but perhaps he could have dodged or gone around it. It is hard to say given he had only one second to make the decision in a heated and dangerous situation, versus all of us arm chair quarterbacking with slow motion video.
5. The police officer could not see the tires of the vehicle, but he could see the vehicle being accelerated towards him. His belief was probably reasonable.
2 is also "debatable" because we were told it by Noem/Trump, not by anyone at the scene, or shown in any video
The one where after he shoots her dead he says "fucking bitch?" The one where her last words are "we are not mad at you?"
Time and analysis will show who said what and who did what.
Besides, I'm fairly sure that it wasn't the general public there that said that about the person that had just been shot.
I'm uncertain what you meant with your second sentence. Perhaps you could restate what you mean another way?
> I have a mental illness that makes me think that people will change their minds if presented with correct arguments, appropriate facts and data.
But there were multiple persons filming the incident, the police vehicles nearby likely had cameras and likely some officers had body cameras as well. And there may be surveillance video cameras on buildings too.
In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing.
I agree with that. Perhaps this is one of those "extreme things". But current interpretations of this event are politically extreme and harmfully polarizing to us as a people. So all the more reason to be cautious and circumspect.
twixfel says >"
[giardini]>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.
[twixfel>"is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing."
Please remain calm.
My viewpoint is neither "a mad, mad take" nor "literal prejudice". nor "an opinion based on basically nothing". My viewpoint is a statement of our individual ignorance, of our lack of complete information, and a claim that none of us are omniscient. And it is a request that we be patient and trust our juridical system to proceed the way it was intended.
Although difficult, We must withhold judgement until all [evidence has been presented.**
This is (finally) a decisive video. Yet the NY times analyzes the video and gets it wrong. Here's why:
An important point: the vehicle the deceased was driving is either a front-wheel drive vehicle or a 4-wheel-drive vehicle. We know this b/c we see the front wheels spin, slipping on the icy road before gaining traction.
The video is taken from behind and to the left of the deceased's car. At first the front wheels of the car are pointed to the left and a moment later directly at the ICE agent in question. Furthermore the front wheels are spinning (because the throttle is pressed). Still another moment later the front wheels are pointed to the right and she drives down the street.
IOW *the throttle was down while the car was pointed first toward the left, then toward the ICE agent and finally toward the right. In fact the throttle was down so far the wheels slipped on the ice (you can see the left wheel spinning).
The icy road spared the ICE agent being run over. Had the road been dry he could have been struck and possibly killed.
Conclusion:
The spinning wheels point an incriminating finger at the driver: she was pressing the throttle while the car was pointed to the left, then directly ahead (at the ICE agent), and then to the right. No doubt whatsoever.
We make no claim about intent by the driver but there is little doubt that the ICE agent would have been struck had the road and tires been dry.
On top of all this, the ICE agents clearly had no legitimate reason to be interfering with this woman’s car anyway, as she was driving away from the scene and was not suspected of any immigration offense.
But yes, it was not safe to step in front of that car. The engine was running and the transmission was engaged at least some of the time. But that is one of the dangers officers face every day, e.g. directing traffic, etc.
foldr says >...which anyone can verify is not the case by watching the video you've linked...<
I invite all to view the video at
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis...
and note that the
- wheels of the car are spinning and/or
- the car is moving forward
whilst the wheels are pointed (assuming the driver's perspective)
- first, to the left of the ICE agent,
- then, toward the ICE agent, and finally,
- to the right of the ICE agent.
That is, she "swept" the position of the ICE agent while the wheels were spinning or pulling the vehicle forward.
foldr says >"...it would be completely insane to try to stop a moving car by shooting the driver..."
Shooting also encourages a driver to point the vehicle away from the shooter.
The question is not one of sanity but of what is legal.
The spinning wheels point to interpretations favorable to the ICE agent. There is no denying that she gunned the motor and simultaneously "swept" his position while the wheels were spinning and the motor racing.
Renee Good hit the gas while her wheels were pointed to the left, directly at, and to the right of the shooting ICE officer. You can see the wheels moving the whole time. So at some moment as she drove away the ICE agent was facing an accelerating car headed directly toward him. That provides justification to shoot.
Had the street been dry she would have run into or over the ICE officer. He was spared harm b/c her car's wheels failed to fully gain traction on the icy road.
The logic and the physical situation are inescapable. You may not like it but that doesn't change the facts.