People with this level of lack of constraint and trigger-happiness shouldn't possess firearms or the authority to interact with society in a law-enforcement (or immigration) capacity.
The part that gets me is that even if you stipulate that this man’s life was in jeopardy and that the driver’s actions justify using lethal force (which I don’t agree with, but just go with me for a second), his actions clearly did not make himself or anyone else safer. Just look at what happened to the car after he shot her, it swerved off out of control and rammed another car. It should be obvious that a car without a driver is much more unpredictable and dangerous that a car with a driver, so how can you believe that killing the driver was the appropriate response.
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."
The cruelty is the point. They want to appear like strong-men dealing with criminals and the base goes along with it. In reality, they're quite weak and know this is very unpopular so they've dedicated press conferences along with the VPs time and the President's time to calling the victim a domestic terrorist.
He wasn't trying to keep anyone safe. He was trying to get revenge for being bumped with the car (which was his fault because he walked in front of it). She bumped me, so I shot her. People with this quick of a temper make great gestapo agents as they make sure the population knows not to mess with the gestapo.
If you want to talk about "the rule of law" and not be a screaming hypocrite, you need to start with the highest law in the land which is the US Constitution. It has a few things to say about both the right of us citizens to criticize our government, and our right to not be violently assaulted and summarily executed by government tyrants. This is not surprising, as it was written in the aftermath of similar historical events which kicked off the founding of our country based around individual liberty and limited government. Perhaps try reading some history about our hard-won civil liberties instead of freebasing so much social media that you want to throw away what remains of those liberties just to spite your fellow citizens, whom social media has also made you hate.
It is a dehumanizing Kafkaesque term whose use professes ignorance. But pragmatically, do you think your comment helps convince anyone of your position?
I'm personally ambivalent on illegal immigration in the abstract. But I am of the opinion that even if reforming illegal immigration is someone's pet issue, there are still many reasons they should be opposing the current regime's approach that seemingly requires summarily deporting legal immigrants, unrestrained cruelty against fellow human beings, and now what is shaping up to look an awful lot like the premeditated murder of an American citizen and mother.
In a hypothetical where both could be accomplished at the same time, equitably and humanely, most certainly yes.
Those qualifications are important, lest either issue just be used as a rallying cry to inflict cruelty, pretend token reforms, or otherwise do half the job. If you'd like to respond constructively, I can elaborate.
Also of course we live in the real world where we can't atomically commit to perform both. This makes heuristics highly important. And if this ongoing topic doesn't grate against your own large-context sense of what is more fundamental to the kernel of society, this particular incident should at least run afoul of a small-context concern of when a government is killing its own citizens.
These are strong feelings. I can appreciate strong feelings. I would also keep in mind that there are only 20k to 30k total ICE agents in the entire country (as of this comment). The federal government may not rein them in, but there are enough other humans on US soil to do so. They can also be pursued for the rest of their lives using documentation and evidence after this administration ends, so collecting and preserving that historical record will be important and relevant work.
In the interim, protect yourself and your community.
Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court. Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi).
The only chance any of them see justice is if the US is invaded. Even in a Nazi/SS scenario, only about 0.03% of the SS were convicted and very few of those the rank and file are analogous to the ICE on the street.
If you mean extra-judicial punishment, then the chance of that is also zero. The bravest we have representing us is on the street, and even of those all they did was shout "murderer" then back off and let their friend bleed out when the police said they were not allowed to render aid. So basically it is safe to say of those of us speaking who were not on the street already, that we would do even less than that.
Best case scenario is the people vote "lets not do that again" and we actually don't. But in no case do the murderers actually find accountability.
> Trump will pardon them of all federal crimes. If they are charged by the state, they will use jurisdiction removal and/or supremacy clause to squash it from jeopardy in the state court.
Removal doesn't change the substantive law applied, only the venue of the trial. Supremacy Clause immunity will be litigated, of course.
> Even in the unlikely event both of those fall through, it will take years to wind through that process, and by the time that happens the case will be so cold prosecution cannot follow through (see prosecution of Lon Horiuchi).
The majority of the delay in the Horiuchi case was the 5 year gap between the events and state charges being filed. If state charges are filed in this case, I don’t see much likelihood there will be that kind of delay first.
The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem.
IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court when the pardon is for the exact thing being considered (or possibly, a la Hunter Biden, pardoned of everything a federal criminal court could ever consider).
> The venue moving to a federal court, for a person federally considered pardoned of all federal jeopardy, seems like a problem.
Its not. A federal pardon Constitutionally can only affects federal offenses, not state offenses. That Congress has created a mechanism by which federal courts may try some state offenses does not convert them into federal offenses.
> IANAL but I don't see why a federal pardon wouldn't be binding on a federal court
Because the Constitution doesn't give the President the power to pardon anything but offenses against the federal government. It is the sovereign against which an offense is alleged, not the court in which it is tried, that matters.
Yes you and your sister comment are claiming it is only a venue change. A couple points
(1) Per my response to your sister comment[] the inapplicability of federal pardons to cases removed federal courts hasn't actually been decided by the courts. Some scholars seem you are right, although so far I've done the favors for both of you by pulling up the most readily available citation I could find since you furnished none of your own.
(2) Even if you are correct, you are merely moving my goal post of my OG comment claim, which was that there could be jurisdiction removal, to one where you are suggesting it doesn't matter and the goal post is now whether a pardon applies in the case of jurisdiction removal. I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing.
> I find this a doubtful position, as there is a reason why the feds are often desperate to get their cases pulled into federal court, it can't be for nothing.
The reason is the perception that, in times of high state-federal friction (which is when most attempted state prosecutions of federal agents, and therefore both removal and Supremeacy Clause immunity cases occur) state judges are more likely act with bias against the federal government and federal agent defendants. It’s not because of the fedeal pardon power (which has never been an issue in such cases, as you yourself implicitly note) magically becomes applicable.
There's also an economy of justice concern, since it usually cuts out a couple levels of appeal on federal questions, (instead of trial court, state intermediate appellate court, state supreme court, federal circuit, and US supreme court, the chain is just trial court, federal circuit, US supreme court) and these type of cases always involve federal questions (every case where removal is an issue due to a federal officer being involved is also a case where the parameters of Supremacy Clause immunity are going to be an active issue, and there are possibly other federal issues involved.)
The president can only pardon crimes against the United States. Even if removed to federal court, state charges remain state charges and the judge & jury must follow state laws. Only the venue changes, with the intent being that the federal judge will potentially serve as a more neutral arbiter.
Hmm... this is far outside my domain but apparently there has been no litigation deciding on this yet[].
While no court has conclusively decided this issue, precedent and the structure of the Constitution dictate that answer is “no.” The availability of an immunity defense arising under federal law does not change which sovereign is prosecuting the offense. The president may not pardon such offenses even when they have been removed to federal court. This stands in sharp contrast to convictions under the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, which allows federal courts to incorporate state criminal law to cover acts committed on federal land not otherwise covered by federal law (for example, a domestic assault that takes place on a military base), and which may be pardoned by the president. Those are federal offenses—“against the United States”—because the federal statute borrows the law of the state surrounding the federal enclave, and they are prosecuted by the Justice Department. The charging documents themselves arise under federal law for purposes of Article III.
Your and their argument is compelling, but so is the counter argument IMO. Seems like something that might be tested at some point. If you have any further citations where a court has decided on this would love to look over it.
And if it were true that he was at risk of being hurt by the car, shooting the driver would be the last thing to do. Look what happened when he shot her, she lost control, accelerated, and ran into a parked car
Vouching for your statement here just so I can call this cop a fearful loser.
I am a combat veteran who served during GWOT.
This guy should be stripped of all pay and rank, and barred from any police department in the US. His inability to control his own fear got someone killed. He is solely responsible for a death and wrecklessly endangering others. The passengers in the car should also be able to sue him until he is penniless. The state should go after him for wrongful death.
Dude put himself in front of the vehicle which is contrary to LE training. Then he fired three times, twice on the side for good measure. It was clear she had backed up to leave after another agent grabbed her door and was reaching into the vehicle. Contrary directions were yelled at her. ICE has no business enforcing traffic laws on citizens.
> This video unambiguously shows the car accelerating towards the officer
It unambiguously shows her steering hard in the opposite direction of her murderer, at very low speed. She was very clearly not trying to hit anybody.
> You can't obstruct federal law enforcement, refuse lawful commands
Sure, those things are illegal. But to insinuate that the the punishment should be death at the scene rather than having guilt and punishment decided in court is abhorrent in the extreme.
Are you suggesting hitting a federal agent when not trying to hit them after fleeing a lawful order is not sufficient to show self defense?
She literally hit him. Gunning it towards an officer after being repeatedly asked to exit your vehicle, so you've racked up 2 felonies even before you hit the officer. Obstructing federal law enforcement and fleeing.
I'm assuming she hit him for the sake of argument, but I have no way of knowing either way. I don't think the video makes this unambiguous.
> Are you suggesting hitting a federal agent when not trying to hit them after fleeing a lawful order is not sufficient to show self defense?
No. I'm suggesting two things:
1) Any accusation of her being a "domestic terrorist" is obvious politically-motivated bullshit.
2) The danger the officer was in was clearly not life-threatening. The use of deadly force in this case was not justified. I haven't seen a single video that shows her "gunning it" towards any officer.
> you've racked up 2 felonies even before you hit the officer. Obstructing federal law enforcement and fleeing.
Not relevant. She could have racked up a dozen felonies and it still doesn't justify death. The police are not judges, juries, and executioners. Their job isn't to punish anybody. It's to investigate crimes and bring suspects into the courts for justice. In this case, since they would easily be able to find her later (her killer clearly and intentionally recorded her license plate number), they should have let her flee and then brought charges at a later date when things weren't as chaotic. Their inability to bring her to justice represents a huge failure on their part.
That this woman ended up dead represents, at best, an incredible failure on the part of ICE. At worst, it represents an attempt at instilling fear in everyone in order to suppress dissent.
>Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent.
>"That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.
It is trigger-happy because there was no good reason to draw the weapon or shoot at all. Shooting the woman did not do anything to stop the car, to the contrary it resulted in the car accelerating and hitting another vehicle.
He could have stepped aside instead of drawing his weapon and there wouldn't have been any issue. He also shouldn't have walked around the car that way, that was entirely unnecessary and dangerous.
The woman is clearly distracted by the other ICE officer, that's just an all around dangerous situation they created entirely unnecessarily.
I think the 'good reason' he had was that 7 months ago he was dragged by a car, used a taser twice, and got roughed up.
He probably spent awhile in the hospital pondering what happened. He probably spent time talking to his ICE buddies. About his injuries. About using the taser. About how much he wished he had used his sidearm instead of his taser. And his buddies encouraging him. His buddies encouraging him, "next time don't be so kind with the tazer." He thought about what he would do "next time."
He was fantasizing about "punishing" the guy who dragged him. He fantasized about that for months. He "lost" the last fight and walked away with more injuries than the other guy. Got to even the score.
He evened the score. He won. And he will get away with it.
There is no Karma. He is victorious, and indeed, now placed upon the mantle by the administration as a hero who settled a score against "domestic terrorism."
Taking your framing at face value (I disagree that the videos show this, but lets assume they do). Does shooting someone who is operating a vehicle aimed at you "end the threat"? What happened after the officer shot the driver? Did the car become more or less controlled?
Your first argument was "he's not trigger happy, he only shot her 1 or 2 times" (it was 3 times, by the way). And he "did it in under a second". None of that means he is not trigger happy. Trigger happy means he is inclined to use his weapon in situations where it is unwarranted and may escalate the situation. That is exactly what happened. He turned a woman operating a car into a dead body operating a car on a public street. In no way did he handle the situation correctly.
Was she fleeing, or trying to use her car as a weapon?
> In any case you can watch a solid dozen video sources that show her reversing and targeting this office and hitting him.
I don't think that is true. I've watched a lot of the footage. I even watched enough to know how many bullets were fired! That seems like more knowledge than you possess of the situation.
Last question: Do you believe this woman is a domestic terrorist?
Is there a threat created afterwards by a car being piloted by a corpse or no? If the car is being piloted by a corpse, why did it not continue on course and run over the ICE agent standing "in front of the car"?
In any case you can watch a solid dozen video sources that show her reversing and targeting this office and hitting him.
No, you cannot, because that's not what happened. Look at the angle of her front tires. You don't steer right when you're trying to run down someone standing to your left.
She was not targeting him, she was backing up to turn to leave. Onlookers have stated the same thing we can all see in the videos. She wasn't a dangerous felon, that's state propaganda. And no, shooting a fleeing vehicle is not proper enforcement.
Not judging your reply, but my understanding of the meaning of the word ‘trigger happy’ is that the shooter is too hasty in deciding to fire, and has nothing to do with their skill or accuracy.
I never mentioned a vehicle, let's stay with the hypothetical. Is the cop who fired a single shot into someones head because they were startled by a hiccup "trigger happy"? Or do they need to "mag dump" for the term to apply?
The car accelerated after she was shot and hit another parked car down the road. It could have been a bystander. It was an out of control vehicle, that's why LE is trained not to shoot a moving vehicle.
"Trigger happy" means an affinity to shoot with little or no provocation. Effectiveness with a weapon is unrelated. This is absolutely the definition of trigger happy.
The officer chose to engage and close on the vehicle and chose to circle from the front. If the officer was concerned about being run over, they shouldn't have stood right at the bumper. The car was clearly in gear, moving forward was an obvious expectation.
Did the officer have an escape route? Obviously yes, since they only had to side step to avoid the car. Was there an exigent circumstance? No, the officer could have retreated and nobody else was clearly in harm's way. Was the driver clearly a threat? Again, no.
No, this was straight-up murder from a trigger happy psychopath.
I think there is a disconnect in meanings of trigger-happy. Yours seems to be what people familiar with guns mean, and the other was colloquial “too willing to use a gun.” So you disputed both meanings, but you’re not going to persuade the other side by saying he was actually very trained and skillful in what they see as an unjustified killing. (Not really taking a side personally as I haven’t watched or read much about the death.)
Having watched the videos now, he appears to shoot 2 rounds through the drivers window, after whatever amount of personal danger he was in while in front. That seems closer to mag dumping and poor discipline than not.
So it ultimately comes down to you pretending that you're the ICE officer in this scenario and that you're a heroic upholder of law that killed a violent felon, considering your other comments here. I shouldn't be surprised that you would feel particularly proud about killing a mother under the vaguest and false pretense of a threat.
Your comment jumping to my personal upbringing is uncalled for and not in keeping with hacker news standing and shows you are the morally/intellectually weak one when it comes to this discussion, but you are a moron if you think you can infer where someone grew up or what they have been through because they don't think LAW ENFORCEMENT should behave with PERSONAL MALICE when killing someone.
Thank you for your analysis. This is the kind of nuanced discourse I come to this internet forum for.
If nothing else, I do hope that everyone involved gets the help and care they deserve. Post-trauma depression is a real thing and diagnosis is sketchy at best.
I think we do take away the license of people shown unfit to drive, or with conditions that may cause their driving to hurt others (conditions that cause sudden loss of consciousness, confusion, etc). If the officer has PTSD from being dragged, he should not be given a gun and told to stop someone operating a car using his own body.
Not to mention, do you think we hold our law enforcement to the same standard as our civilians? Do we expect more or less restraint from them in situations like this? Are they trained to handle these situations? If so, what failed in this instance?
Female is a word that can refer to any species. Woman is a human female. The use of "female" is often used to dehumanize the subject, and is almost never used consistently. I am guessing you do not, off the cuff, refer to men as "males". It sounds weird as hell.
> Anyway, law enforcement is fully within their right to meet deadly force with deadly force
Do you disagree that the driver had her wheels turned away from the officer who shot her?
The video shows she turns the vehicle away from the officer and the officer makes no effort to retreat or step away from the vehicle. This is in direct conflict with ICE and DHS use of force policy.
He was moving to assist with an arrest another officer was in the process of making, and it is clear in the video that she looked forward and saw the officer in front of her and decided to accelerate anyway. It doesn't matter if she thought she wouldn't have hit him if she turned hard enough to the right, she hit him anyway.
Again, that is not what the evidence shows, and you are free to follow along as the officer is prosecuted for official confirmation of the facts of the case.
The local prosecutor is collecting evidence currently, so while it may take time to indict considering murder charges against a federal officer, I expect to see it occur eventually. They are bypassing the FBI to avoid a lack of effort one would expect from this administration.
> Hennepin County prosecutor asks the public to share Renee Good shooting evidence with her office
The Governor and mayor do not agree at all that it is in his favor. Nor does The NY Times. I've watched dozens of people break down the video, including former LE who say the officer was clearly in the wrong.
Even if you were correct (you aren't) using 'blocking law enforcement' as part of some cumulative guilt she acquired that justifies a moms murder is weak fucking sauce man. The bar you are trying to set for justifying extra-judicially killing her is un-American as fuck.
'blocking law enforcement using their SUV and then try to flee' has zero relevance as the when law enforcement is authorized to use deadly force. Why the fuck are you trying to expand those actions to death sentences? It's not coming from American law nor authority granted to law enforcement.
