A summary of the legal violations by ICE re: Renee Good

[spooky3]

This post is purportedly by an attorney. I thought it was very helpful.

Post by @boulah_boulah

View on Threads

?xmt==1

Here is the first part (it’s a long post):

“ For the first 4 years of my legal career, I was tasked with defending police officers in civil suits for excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and various other civil rights claims. I conducted 9 jury trials in federal court during these years. With that background, I can honestly say without hesitation that the Minnesota videos i saw are the most appalling conduct by “law enforcement” I have seen. There are a number of violations of law, in addition to police policies and procedures. Justice demands criminal prosecution of the shooter, discipline for each ICE agent involved in approaching that vehicle, and civil suits (including seeking punitive damages for wrongful death) against all ICE agents involved, and here is why:

1) The stated purpose for their mission is to apprehend violent criminals for civil deportation. It is clear that they are going well beyond their authority in detaining and attempting to detain US citizens that legally have every right to be present, videotape, blow whistles, etc. The only proper recourse for these officers is to ask for voluntary compliance, or alternatively is to call local police that have the authority to enforce local
statutes, including traffic and noise violations.

2) The officers approached a vehicle in the road without any legal basis to do so. ICE does not have jurisdiction over traffic laws (if the claim is the woman is illegally parked and/or blocking them).

3) Additionally, ICE cannot broadly claim that being illegally parked in a road is impeding their law enforcement effort, as I have seen argued. While obstruction would be a reason to detain someone, there has to be an underlying legal event that they are obstructing, such as they have a judicial warrant to arrest someone/search somewhere and Ms. Good is taking actions to impede that, hiding the person, blocking the arrest, blocking a search, etc. …”

[unblock]

1. Good list. A few more points:

He easily waltzed to the side of the car without leaping, undermining any argument that he was in danger.

Being in front of a car moving at maybe 3 mph is not a great danger. We're not talking about a car barreling down on you at highway speeds.

He had a clear view of the driver turning the car to the right, away from him. Again, it's not like she was turning towards him.

Incapacitating a driver doesn't stop a car. At best, it keeps it on its path, and it's more likely to speed up (which it did) than to slow down (a killed driver is not going to apply the brakes. If the speed and direction of the car was a danger to him, shooting the driver would make him less safe, not safer. Meaning shooting her is not an act of self-defense.

[Qutzupalotl]

2. Here is the full text:

For the first 4 years of my legal career, I was tasked with defending police officers in civil suits for excessive force, false arrest, malicious prosecution, and various other civil rights claims. I conducted 9 jury trials in federal court during these years. With that background, I can honestly say without hesitation that the Minnesota videos i saw are the most appalling conduct by “law enforcement” I have seen. There are a number of violations of law, in addition to police policies and procedures. Justice demands criminal prosecution of the shooter, discipline for each ICE agent involved in approaching that vehicle, and civil suits (including seeking punitive damages for wrongful death) against all ICE agents involved, and here is why:

1) The stated purpose for their mission is to apprehend violent criminals for civil deportation. It is clear that they are going well beyond their authority in detaining and attempting to detain US citizens that legally have every right to be present, videotape, blow whistles, etc. The only proper recourse for these officers is to ask for voluntary compliance, or alternatively is to call local police that have the authority to enforce local statutes, including traffic and noise violations.

2) The officers approached a vehicle in the road without any legal basis to do so. ICE does not have jurisdiction over traffic laws (if the claim is the woman is illegally parked and/or blocking them).

3) Additionally, ICE cannot broadly claim that being illegally parked in a road is impeding their law enforcement effort, as I have seen argued. While obstruction would be a reason to detain someone, there has to be an underlying legal event that they are obstructing, such as they have a judicial warrant to arrest someone/search somewhere and Ms. Good is taking actions to impede that, hiding the person, blocking the arrest, blocking a search, etc.

4) ICE also does not have authority to make traffic stops or order US citizens to exit their vehicles. ICE had no constitutional authority to search that vehicle and no reason to fear that she had a weapon or anything in her car- they were attempting to conduct an unreasonable search and seizure under the US constitution. To the extent that they claim they had reasonable suspicion that Ms. Good and her partner were “illegal immigrants,” the officer/shooter’s actions videotaping the license plate which can be run undermine that straw man argument

5) The video shows that officers were giving Ms. Good contradictory orders. One officer can be heard yelling to pull out, while another is reaching for the door and screaming to get out of the car. It is objectively unreasonable for any person to then know which order to follow. Instead, it is abundantly reasonable to follow either of the orders being barked at her, which she did by reversing slowly and beginning to pull away.

6) The aggression with which the officers approached the vehicle violate every police code of conduct i have encountered, and Section 1983 of the United States Code. Officers are trained to approach a vehicle from the side, with a single person giving commands. Additional officers can approach the other side for the officers safety. They are never taught to move in front of or behind vehicles. Additionally, officers are taught to ask people to lower their windows and speak to them calmly, and not to try to open their doors/rip someone from a vehicle. There are clearly no exigent circumstances that could justify an ambush like this (Ms. Good has no weapon brandished and shows no threat to herself or others by sitting in the drivers seat of an illegally parked vehicle).

7) An officer cannot defend his use of force when he creates the situation that gives rise to the danger. By stepping in front of the vehicle against all training, any perceived threat was created by the officer. He cannot justify his use of force as reasonable when he voluntarily violated training and policies and put himself in danger.

8) The officer pulled his gun while Ms Good was in reverse. It is unreasonable to be in fear of your life from a vehicle when you are standing in front of a vehicle and it is moving in the opposite direction. Please note, no other officers even had their guns out which is further evidence that none feared for their safety.

9) When the vehicle began moving forward, the officer had already stepped to the side and Ms Good was clearly turning away from him. If she was trying to escape, there are no police procedures that allow him to shoot because such actions are illegal and violate the constitution. Even if they had witnessed her commit a felony or actually obstruct a lawful proceeding (which had not happened), they are not permitted to shoot at her or her vehicle as it drives away from them.

10) Nontheless, he leaned over the hood and shot Ms Good through the front windshield. Deadly force is not reasonable in any way in this scenario. Firing that shot violates Minnesota criminal law and he should be prosecuted for homicide. Additionally, it clearly and easily amounts to excessive force in violation of Section 1983.

11) The officer fired twice more through the driver window as he was safely to the side of the vehicle completely. In addition to being additional criminal conduct and another violation of Section 1983 for excessive force, these shots show malicious intent and intent to kill, both elements in support of the officer committing a crime and against any argument that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity (note- absolute immunity does not exist for law enforcement).

12) The officer, after firing three shots into the vehicle yelled “fucking bitch” which is further evidence of his vitriol and hate and shows malicious intent, and cuts against any argument that his actions had been lawful.

13) The failure to attempt to administer aid after shooting Ms Good in the face is an actionable offense under Section 1983. I am heartbroken to watch something like this unfold. I am angry that untrained ICE agents are running around cities cosplaying law enforcement without regard to citizens’ constitutional rights. I am enraged that this officer killed a woman in the fashion that he did with no justifiable reason. I am fearful for our society that so many are trying to defend the actions here in spite of the mountain of evidence against ICE.

[underpants]

3. 4, 7, & 9

Thanks for posting this.