The content of the post deemed by ICE to warrant ~~federal prosecution~~ crime-boss-style intimidation:
> BREAKING: The ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good in broad daylight has been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Minnesota Star Tribune. I think today is a great day for Johnathan to be indicted!
If anyone is wondering, it would still be a good day : )
I see they were invited in by the person they wanted to intimidate, so that she wouldn't be alone, and there were no voters present.
"Better judgement" would have been to not invite them and to not accept the invitation, but after the fact I could say it's preferable to the alternative.
The person who decided to take action against this lady should be fired though.
It's worth pointing out that there is an even stronger point on which to hang our hats. Even if Jonathan Ross "felt he was in danger", he was only in that situation due to his own actions of how he himself approached the vehicle, in deliberate violation of explicitly written ICE policy. In fact he had previously tried to stop a car with his own body in a different incident, and had ended up being dragged for quite some time. These signs point to him having deliberately created a pretext to simply execute the next person who might try to drive away from him. In other words, this was an execution with premeditated intent.
You do realize that's a politically motivated account of actions that has never been subjected to any kind of cross-examination.
I want a trial to know if this was a murder or a law enforcement action or self-defense. I should not be expected to decide PERSONALLY, I'm supposed to have a justice system that does that.
What I heard is that she attempted to drive a way in a direction that would have made no physical contact with the officer, but the vehicle started to slip sideways on ice and travel in the direction of the officer.
If this is all true, the officer might likely be acquitted at trial, as the only necessary justification for such force is that the officer have any reason to fear for their life.
But THERE SHOULD BE A TRIAL. What I have heard from those who have studied the available forensic evidence is that Renee Good never intended to do anything but drive away, which may or may not have been legal but is not (necessarily) attempted murder, nor alone cause for an instant death penalty.
There should be a trial if for no other reason than to clear the name of Renee Good, who you are accusing of a heinous crime
You don't have to 'hear' anything. If you watch the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNbHlmZVmAw for example (0:55), you see that the tires are turned completely away from the murderer, who fires shots directly into her even though he is obviously not in danger of being seriously harmed.
It's scary that you bring up the question of whether Rene Good was under arrest or not at the time she was killed.
As if it were legal or justified to execute people for failing to cooperate with their own arrest. It's scary because you're not the only person who believes this - many in ICE and other police agencies hold this belief, and by repeating it you encourage them to kill again.
Yeah I get that. I understand that a car is really a deadly weapon, and the officer in a split second could not know for sure if the intent was to attack.
But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee
They have decided that hate of the other is more important than love of their nation. That sort of degenerate value system demands that they not only throw away their decency, but do so loudly and publicly to virtue signal their loyalty to the regime and willingness to disregard the truth that is in front of our eyes.
People are so cavalier about saying atrocious things online these days. The nice thing is that these comments are forever. They will never escape their words.
"assaulting a cop with your car" as if she wasn't trying to simply leave the area and had her tires turned completely away from the cop who proceeds to shoot her in the head.
> innocent people
I must have missed the trial where she was found guilty, when did that happen? Oh wait...
Either way, you're celebrating the extra-judicial execution of a citizen and think that's normal behavior. You sound like the violent person here.
But she didn't dox him - per the quote above, the Minnesota Star released his name. She simply restated what was reported.
And that's before we consider the absurdity of making the names of federally-sanctioned killers private. They should all be wearing name tags and ID numbers.
And she didn't actually do what the agents claimed in their letter to her:
“This notice officially informs you that it is unlawful to threaten to assault, kidnap, and/or murder a federal official or that federal official’s immediate family member with the intent to impede, intimidate, and/or interfere with the federal official’s duties or retaliate against a federal official due to the performance of their duties."
She did none of the above. She only said "This is his name. Would be nice if he was indicted." That's not a threat - she's not in a position to indict him or sway a DA towards indictment. His family wasn't mentioned. There was no impeding of his work,
This kind of intimidation sucks and I'd like to see individual officers who indulge in it lose their qualified immunity and be prosecuted for it.
But I'm at least grateful to live under a regime that needs to break its own laws to do this, and so such charges can be dismissed by courts that follow the law, even if they don't apply consequences to the offending officials. Compare that to the UK where more than 12k people were arrested for social media posts in 2023 alone and where it is fully permitted under the law with great discretion and supported by the courts.
It's a bit like "my husband is better than yours because he doesn't beat me as hard", but it's something.
The 12k number is an estimate, and only 1k were convicted. And the law they're being charged with breaking covers things like threats to assault someone, false bomb threats, harassment of ex-partners, threats sent to MPs, serious domestic abuse-related crimes, etc. There's no breakdown of what each charge was for.
If you make a bomb threat or threaten to kill someone else over social media, you really should get arrested and prosecuted because that isn't an exercise of "first amendment rights".
Given the costs of defending a federal case start at the five figs and the typical naughty tweets style offense nets community service at worst, I’m not so sure.
Which of the 12K arrests do you not agree with? Or are you saying people should be free to write whatever they want on social media with no repercussions?
Saying what you want about the government without fear of reprecussion or intimidation or consequence from the government is literally in the constitution. Very specifically for this situation.
This isn't a "freespeach" argument, this is the actual text of the actual constitution. This is the actual literal reason that line is included in the bill of rights. It is explicit constitutional law that the government cannot punish you for criticizing the government.
There are a ton of exceptions to our right to free speech, but this is not one.
I don't think this is actually your view, though. I can't imagine that you think harassment or violent threats are things that should have no repercussions.
Most countries in the West have higher threshold to arrest someone over social media posts. Some actually much, much higher.
12K is just a ridiculous number and indicates that the UK indeed has a free speech problem. I don't think that in my country there were more like ~ 20 actual arrests over the same problem during the same period.
Even if you agree with prosecuting people for speech, why exactly would you arrest them and drag them to prison/jail? Even here in Europe, this is a sort of offense that usually results in a suspended sentence or a fine, and a physical arrest is absolutely unnecessary, unless there is a good suspicion that that person is going to harm some concrete people at a concrete time.
In a more liberal country, even if prosecution over an utterance takes place, it usually happens without arrests, simply by asking the culprit to come to a police station and explain themselves, later the same in front of a court. There just isn't any need for physical restraining of that person, it is just intimidation.
I know in CA it is a violation of election law for an armed law enforcement officer to enter a vote center unless they are responding to an incident or there to vote.
That, in my opinion, is the question of the era for the USA. We were taught that the rule of law prevailed and there are "checks and balances" but it seems like there is no prescibed way to enforce the rules inside the system.
Different cops. We had sheriff’s deputies out for some other issue, my impression was they took the law pretty seriously. They may not arrest them on the spot, but I think they would get ID and tell them to leave, and later file a report.
Are you sure about that? Things that didn't happen in the US but did happen in [insert corrupt any country] should be prevented. Even things that only happen in books/movies should still be prevented early just in case.
The UK case involved him being "lead away" by police and "detained" when he returned and spoke so not really an arrest for holding up a blank piece of paper. Not good by any means, but not quite "for holding up a blank piece of paper". The other UK case was about a threat of arrest if he wrote on the paper - that is under the law that bans protests in Parliament Square. Again, not good, but not for holding up a blank piece of paper.
I thought detainment was a lighter kind of arrest. Seems that I’m wrong and they are distinct concepts (I’m not too familiar with the English terminology here, my bad)
When someone is detained, they're just a person of interest wanted for questioning. When they're arrested, it's because they've actually been charged for something.
I remember the good ole days when the White House would coordinate with former employees that got jobs with SV companies in their "online safety" orgs and would just ban or shadowban people. Less legally suspect because it was action by private companies.
How is this anything other than a flagrant violation of her constitutional right to free speech? This is the government suppressing her speaking the name of the executioner, which was already publicly published.
If I was her, I would be launching a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the government for a violation of constitutional rights.
Was it against the law for them to ASK that she remove her post? In essence, it was a request, coupled with an unrelated statement about the illegality of interfering with federal officers. Yes, it was an attempt to intimidate her, but she recognized it for what it was and did not cave in.
Doxxing has many forms, and I agree that she did nothing wrong by citing the news source with the officers name, and offering her opinion. They did not detain or arrest her, and she agreed, and even invited them to speak with her.
More broadly, across various instances, the administration and feds have been coming out strongly against basic freedom of speech which is a core constitutional pillar that defines America. It is highly unAmerican.
Meanwhile, the crook in charge keeps doing everything he can to keep his cronies rich, at the expense of the planet's climate. Those who voted for him continue to remain utterly uninformed of the tornadoes and floods they sow.
> BREAKING: The ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good in broad daylight has been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Minnesota Star Tribune. I think today is a great day for Johnathan to be indicted!
If anyone is wondering, it would still be a good day : )
reply