Donald Trump the Megathread part II - Mod Warning updated in OP 12/2/26

They can shoot if they believe that they or the public are in imminent danger due to the vehicle. Given that one of them was hit by the car, albeit not head on, then the criteria was met.

There's no evidence anyone was in serious danger. We've all seen the footage from multiple angles. The body cam footage, he just sounds pissed off with her and that's about it. Nobody is seriously buying what you're claiming.

why would my view be political ?! Just because I thought an ICE agent was justified does not mean I support a party.

Babitt was not threatening the life of anyone or trying to kill someone

Good drove her car deliberately into an ICE agent and tried to kill him IMO

I don’t believe that’s the case and how you know I’m right is …. the officer will not be indicted or charged with anything or face any punitive action.

If you think she was deliberately trying to kill him why did she reverse her car to change the angle she was driving, away from him?

Mod Edit: Warned for personal abuse

Well you've already lied pretty quickly there. He wasn't directly in front of her car. He was at the side of her car. You've just engaged in a massive spiel of propaganda to justify murder.

Hopefully but hard to know. America does have a cohort of people that treat any police killing as FAFO. A sentiment that alot of his maga supporters here seem to reflect. His messing about with the economy is hopefully going to hurt him more.

How long will people keep defending the ice piece of sh1t murderer?

I’d say about 3 more days then then this will all be forgotten about by media

But you don't seem to mind that no investigation will actually occur. The administration are happily covering it up. You're just concluding it's proof that you're right.

are you talking about Epstein or the ICE shooting?

if ICE shooting - why would I mind no investigation if I don’t think anything wrong happened …

Catalyst….exactly. It seems we have always been deceived that the US is a normal society. The period when it seems to function like one misled us. The country is a sea of burning lava under a thin crust of sanity. The fact that the country was able to elect Obama made people ignore the evil bubbling under, an evil that never went away. People looked on things like the dyed in the wool racism and xenophobia, the isolationism, McCarthyism, know-nothingism, the open imperialism, the misogyny, the religious mania, the poor education, the feral, brutal individualism, selfishness, cruelty and paranoia as history or as decaying relics. They were just ashes in a dead fire, not extinguished but merely dormant, like a long-forgotten virus just awaiting its chance. With Trump the opportunity came to destroy the advances that seem to be utterly repugnant to a large section of the population, an opportunity to turn the country back a hundred years. Sorry for the bizarre metaphor-mixing.

So do many other people. Unfortunately those in power tend to get away with horrible things. How do you not realise this? Were you born yesterday?

The problem with that statement isn’t that it argues for officer safety — it’s that it asserts disputed claims as settled fact, and then uses that certainty to smear anyone who questions the shooting as “far-left activists.” That’s propaganda framing, not analysis.

1) “Lawful enforcement action” is not a magic spell — legality and necessity still have to be proven

Even if ICE had legal authority to be there, lawful authority does not automatically make every tactical choice lawful, reasonable, or necessary. Use-of-force standards (including DHS’s own) require necessity and an imminent threat — not simply noncompliance, not “disrespect,” and not “we didn’t like what she did.” DHS policy authorizes deadly force only when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. 

And multiple credible reports note that Minneapolis officials and witnesses dispute the federal self-defense narrative after reviewing video. Reuters reported the mayor said the video contradicted claims that the shooting was self-defense. 

2) “A moving vehicle is a lethal weapon. There is no debate.” — actually, there is debate, and policy is nuanced

Yes, a vehicle can be lethal. But the statement’s absolutism (“no debate,” “every officer is trained…”) is flatly contradicted by modern policing guidance.

AP’s explainer on this exact incident notes there are no universal rules, and that most guidelines — including federal-style ones — generally restrict shooting at moving vehicles, typically allowing it only when there’s an imminent deadly threat that can’t be safely avoided (and officers are generally expected to move out of the way). 

A concrete example: LAPD’s long-standing policy says officers shall not shoot at a moving vehicle unless someone inside is using deadly force by means other than the vehicle — explicitly stating that the vehicle itself shouldn’t be treated as the justification. 

So when someone says “there is no debate,” they’re either uninformed or trying to bulldoze you past the actual standard: Was deadly force necessary, and was there an imminent threat that couldn’t be avoided?

3) “Bodycam shows she accelerated while an officer stood directly in front” — that’s precisely what’s being contested

The statement presents a clean morality play: calm officers, intentional “interference,” clear lethal threat, justified shooting. But major reporting on the Renee Good shooting describes key details as disputed — including whether the agent unnecessarily put himself in the danger zone, and whether the threat was truly imminent at the moment shots were fired. The Washington Post summary of expert reaction highlights criticism that the officer’s positioning and tactics may have been avoidable and inconsistent with best practices. 

That matters because an officer creating the deadly-force dilemma (by stepping into a vehicle’s path when safer options exist) is a central question in many use-of-force reviews — and it’s exactly why so many agencies emphasize move, create distance, use cover, disengage if feasible rather than “stand in front and shoot.”

4) “Calling this ‘the killing of a mother’ is emotional blackmail” — it’s also just accurate description

You can believe someone should comply with orders and still recognize that a human being was killed. Describing the deceased as a mother isn’t “blackmail”; it’s context. AP and other outlets identified Renee Good as a 37-year-old mother and reported that officials locally called the killing avoidable/reckless. 

More importantly: motherhood isn’t a legal defense — and neither is a badge. The rule of law applies to everyone, including federal agents. “Disliking the law does not grant immunity” cuts both ways: disliking scrutiny does not grant immunity from accountability.

5) The statement substitutes insult for evidence

Labeling critics “far-left Karen’s,” calling outrage an “outrage machine,” and asserting protesters “always provoke” is not an argument. It’s a way to avoid the hard questions the available reporting says are central here:

• Was this shooting consistent with DHS’s “imminent threat / necessity” standard?  
• Did the officer follow widely adopted best practice on moving-vehicle encounters (avoid the fatal funnel; move, create distance; don’t shoot just because a vehicle is moving)?  
• Do video and eyewitness accounts support the claim that she intentionally tried to run an officer over, or do they undermine it (as local officials say)?  

A serious, fact-based posture would be: release all footage, preserve all evidence, allow an independent investigation, and evaluate necessity + imminence under policy and constitutional standards. The post you quoted does the opposite: it declares the verdict first, then searches for language to make doubt sound immoral.