https://bsky.app/profile/ragnarokx.bsky.social/post/3mbz7pt4...
> I synced up the video from the Johnathan Ross and a bystander to help show what was happening when he fumbled his camera. He was already out of the way at that point and already had his gun drawn. It wasn't him being hit, it was him shooting Renee Good.
Watching the synced videos, I'm realizing now the sound of "OOHHH" does not come from the shooter, but afterwards. It's another officer. I no longer have the impression of an officer surprised, threatened and reacting to danger.
You can clearly see on the POV-cam the driver's hands turning the steering wheel. She's trying to get out of that situation and drive away. That's clear, and it gives the shooter time to step out of the way.
Well, the shooter is not having it. And despite there being a civilian on the other side of the car, and officers all around the car, he choose to kill the driver, discharging his weapon. Felony Obstruction becomes punishable by death.
_"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can’t take part; you can’t even passively take part, and you’ve got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you’ve got to make it stop. And you’ve got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you’re free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!"_ – Mario Savio
The ultimate sacrafice
Even if you think he was justified in his use of force, everyone should be able to see that how he used force was at best inappropriate. Not being able to admit that is a sign that you’re letting your bias overrule what you’re seeing.
This is the most critical recent "code" development. In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Barnes v. Felix that courts must look at the "totality of circumstances" leading up to a shooting.
The Rule: If an officer recklessly steps in front of a vehicle (creating the danger themselves), a court can now rule that their subsequent use of force was unreasonable because they "precipitated" the threat.
Impact: This case effectively ended the "moment of threat" defense, where officers used to argue, "It doesn't matter how I got in front of the car; I shot because it was about to hit me." Now, the law says: "If you put yourself there unnecessarily, you are liable."
A lot of these guys behave like they really want someone to provoke them so they can shoot someone ... even when they're not provoked:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agen...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_poin...
These are the folks this administration want out there, to distract folks, fracture country, all of the above probably.
Edit at 21:29 UTC: BBC has edited the article to include the following line: "In the final part of the video the car is seen veering down the road. The ICE agent swears." Again, that "final part" has been edited out entirely. It shows that the agent was not affected by the SUV, and maintains his iPhone in his offhand recording the incident without issue. "The ICE agent swears." is used euphemistically to obfuscate what he actually did and said, which was to angrily call the victim a "fucking bitch".
https://x.com/AlphaNews/status/2009679932289626385?s=20
She accelerated against the officer, hit them, he defended himself, which stands counter to the bloodlust directed towards ICE.
—
Order of events based on video analysis:
- The agent approaches the vehicle, which is stopped or slow-moving.
- The woman speaks through the window (partial audio/transcript includes phrases like "Big boy, show your face," "I'm not mad at you," and references to not changing plates or being a U.S. citizen—tone appears defiant or sarcastic).
- The agent positions himself near or in front of the vehicle.
- The SUV then accelerates forward, with the hood/grille filling the camera view (suggesting very close proximity, potentially a bump or near-miss).
- The camera shakes/tumbles, ending with views of the street and the vehicle driving away.
Are ICE agents like police? In the sense that, can they detain someone they suspect of being a criminal, etc...?
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
However, our Supreme Court is out of control, and Justice Kavanaugh recently issued a ruling allowing racial profiling, meaning people can be detained for looking a certain way. These sorts of racially motivated detentions are now known as "Kavanaugh Stops": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop
So ICE agents don't have to suspect them of any crime; if they "look illegal", they can be detained and deported without due process.
ICE agents are police officers and have all the powers that police officers have. They're under federal jurisdiction rather than state, county, or city. The only limitations are what does or does not fall under their jurisdiction. For instance, they don't have the power to enforce traffic laws (because those aren't federal), but they can certainly arrest you for breaking federal laws or detain you while investigating them.
As I see those laws are not really knew, they were just not enforced during the previous administration as strictly, but people who broke those laws did it consciously.
Do people really care about the people who broke the laws or just hate the current administration so much?
From the Atlantic:
> New deportation officers at ICE used to receive about five months of federal-law-enforcement training. Administration officials have cut that time roughly in half, partly by eliminating Spanish-language courses. Academy training was shortened to 47 days, three officials told me, the number picked because Trump is the 47th president.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/08/ice-rec...
"Fucking bitch"
And people here defend his actions as self defense. He was angry. He shot in anger. This is murder.
What the admin is doing is treason.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/ice-shooting-minneap...
A security expert who has analyzed the new video filmed by an ICE officer says it appears to have been edited to remove crucial moments that show when shots were fired at Good.
Thomas Warrick, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think-tank, said when the 47-second-long video is watched second-by-second, it briefly goes black around the 42-second mark.
"There's no logical reason why somebody holding a cellphone has a black frame at that point," said Warrick, a former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at the Department of Homeland Security.
He said the phone evidently didn't fall to the ground, because the officer is holding it at the end of the video and pointing it toward Good's car.
"So, clearly, he never dropped the phone. Why is that black frame there? What happened?" Warrick said.
"This is going to fuel the narrative that evidence is being manipulated."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/ice-shooting-minneap...
( I'm outside the US, I've worked for deacdes in "intelligence" (being accurate about video, signals, resources, data) for well heeled private clients and state, national level governments. )
Wider angle earlier release video that showed the other officer approach the side window, reach in and attempt to grab keys and or unlock and open door (prompting car to reverse, turn wheels, and move forwards) show this officer turning, crouching, drawing, stalking in to aiming at driver all prior to the forward motion.
This released footage does not appear to have that sequence.
