New video shows officer's perspective in ICE shooting of Renee Good

[David64]

The woman shot saw her 'personal responsibility' as demonstrating against an over reaching government agency.

Those officers were performing their duty under Federal law. She has no right to interfere. Funny how the Left screams "over reach" when laws they don't like are being enforced. 

What happened to "No One Is Above The Law" ? I guess the exceptions are Democrats, Somalis and illegals.

Liberals are fighting harder to protect illegals than they are for American citizens.

[andy06shake]

What.

Again.  Good took it upon herself to use her car as a roadblock to impede and interfere.

The agents didn’t ram her car.

They got out to “investigate” the situation where they had every right to apprehend Good for interfering.

Good further escalated the situation by not following lawful orders.

Good further escalated the situation by accelerating into agents surrounding her car.

Good created the situation and her subsequent actions escalated the situation by increasingly breaking the law.

Considering the extensive video coverage from all sorts of different angles.

The witness statements, combined with the socalled ice agents' previous history.

Put it in front of a judge and judy and see what they have to say on the matter. 

You're trying to criminalise her while ignoring accountability for the authorities.

She did not deserve to die, and you know it.

Anyhoo, just feeding you now.

ICE just shot a poor woman for trying to escape and leave the scene. 

Spin it any way you please, but that still happened...

[Kurokage]

“As I stated above, I think his first shot was justifiable. I don't see how the next two were.”

If the initial decision to use deadly force was reasonable then multiple shots are not only a natural reality but the police are trained to fire until the threat is ended.
In this situation, she hit the cop with her vehicle and ended up on the losing side of “bring a vehicle to a gunfight”.
We can argue whether she intended to hit him or not but it is totally irrelevant.
She hit him.
The totality of events show…

She was only in that area impeding and obstructing law enforcement.
The cops were looking for her because she was doing so.
When confronted she ignored lawful orders.
She fled after being confronted.
She hit a cop with her vehicle.
At this point, the cops know she’s been willfully engaging in unlawful behavior and now it’s escalated to assault with a deadly weapon. (using her suv as a weapon)
If she would hit a cop then the assumption is she would hit anybody or everybody.
It’s a good shoot and the videos show it unquestionably.

So you say the first the shot was justifiable.
The law says that if the first shot is justifiable, so are the remaining shots.

“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.”
- Justice Samuel Alito, Plumhoff v. Rickard (572 U.S. 765, 2014)

She was in the area demonstrating, which she's by law allowed to do.
If the cops had no evidence that she broke the law, then they were illegally 'hunting' her. She appears to have only legally demonstrated until that point.
There's evidence that says one officer told her to move her vehicle, whilst another told her to get out of the car.
She didn't flee the scene, she was moving her vehicle.
She did strike the officer with her car but the officer decided to put himself in harms way, (against training recommendations) otherwise it wouldn't have happened.
No evidence she used her vehicle as a deadly weapon. Again, if the other officer told her move the vehicle, then the situation would've been confusing for everyone.
It's claimed the first shot didn't hit her, and the second and third shots fired through the drivers side window, were point blank and killed her. You know after she drove past the officer, not running him over.

It boils down to bad training, especially now after Vance told a briefing the officer had been run over a few months before

[FlyersFan]

I've seen no evidence that she'd been 'breaking the law' all day, ...

She had been interfering with law enforcement all day.
Not just 'protesting', but interfering.
That's breaking the law.
That has been reported on TV news.

[FlyersFan]

She was in the area demonstrating, which she's by law allowed to do.

She wasn't just demonstrating.
She was interfering with law enforcement.
That's illegal.

[Kurokage]

Those officers were performing their duty under Federal law. She has no right to interfere. Funny how the Left screams "over reach" when laws they don't like are being enforced. 

What happened to "No One Is Above The Law" ? I guess the exceptions are Democrats, Somalis and illegals.

Liberals are fighting harder to protect illegals than they are for American citizens.

Who's "Left"? 

She has every right to legally demonstrate.
I think the "No One Is Above The Law" should definitely be applied to this situation including the officers actions.

[FlyersFan]

And what kind of ""domestic terrorist"" takes a dog on a mission anyway?

One that's an idiot.
Which this woman was.
She caused her own situation.

[andy06shake]

She wasn't just demonstrating.
She was interfering with law enforcement.
That's illegal.

To the tune of being shot to death?

Pretty harsh punishment imho.

[FlyersFan]

The officer involved should never have put himself in front of the vehicle ...

The woman who died should never have tried to run him down, and should 
have instead obeyed the orders of law enforcement and gotten out of the car.
Better yet .. she should have gone to a job somewhere instead of spending
the day interfering with law enforcement which is a crime.

[andy06shake]

One that's an idiot.
Which this woman was.
She caused her own situation.

So now you execute idiots?

If stupid is punishable by death. 

I wonder where that will end, and in whose tears first? 

Talk about a slippery slope...