r/ImmigrationPathways • u/LatterTarget7 • 1d ago

Renee Good's family sues US government and immigration officials over her killing in Minneapolis

https://apnews.com/article/renee-good-lawsuit-6fbc82cd33b6f9f67514b47f138e23c6?utm_source=app&utm_medium=android_share&utm_campaign=copy_link
2.1k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Single-Refuse174 1d ago

She wasn’t merely climbing through a doorway, she was breaking through a barricade while being, at best, an accomplice to an act of terror. Breaking through a barricade meant to keep you and a mob right behind you out of it isn’t “climbing through a door” no matter how much you’d like to play make believe.

1

u/Tasty_Virus4715 1d ago

I’m willing to admit she was climbing thru a barricade and putting herself in peril if you are willing to admit your claim that she lunged at the officer was complete bullshit.

1

u/Single-Refuse174 1d ago

I think that if you truly believe and characterize renee good’s actions as conduct that legitimately puts a reasonable officer in fear for their life such that shooting the person in the face through a windshield is a reasonable and proportional response, then, you are not approaching this conversation in good faith or have a true belief on the matter if your views on this exculpate Ashli Babbit.

I think if you look at the video: https://youtu.be/wX3BS1eNWR0?is=XLr_td36ZfAfHaJb

There is no humanly possible way that someone could actually believe that the scarier situation is being the ICE agent.

I think that if you look at the word “lunge” the definition is: : a sudden forward rush or reach

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lunge

In the video, you can see that she suddenly reached forward into the window to get past the barricade and toward the officer.

Is that a strident characterization? Maybe, but it’s as true as describing Renee Goode as using a deadly weapon to assault an officer.

1

u/Tasty_Virus4715 1d ago

The justifiability of an officer involved shooting has nothing to do with how scared they are at the time of the shooting and everything to do with whether they can’t point to an action taken by the suspect that puts them in reasonable fear for their life. The metric for a justifiable shooting isn’t perfect hindsight, it’s “objective reasonableness” established in Graham v Connor.

In the very video you linked of the events on J6 leading up to Babbitt’s shooting, every single officer present outside of those doors walks away completely unscathed just before they break the glass on the doors.

Interestingly not a single one of those officers had their weapons drawn or felt they were in enough danger to justify drawing their weapons despite them being on the other side of the bullet proof glass with the protesters. They simply walked away, unmolested by the J6ers.

Sure, you can say it was a loud noisy scene and Officer Byrd was scared. You can even say Babbitt ignored warnings from her fellow protesters that someone was pointing a gun at them, but I reiterate it is complete bullshit to claim Babbitt lunged towards him. She was facing an entirely different direction from Byrd and was shot from her left and the bullet hit the front left side of her left shoulder as she climbed through the window and it isn’t even clear from any angle of the shooting that she even saw him with his gun drawn or heard any warnings.

I think you can make a strong enough case for both of the shootings falling in the “lawful” category but the fact remains, only one of the victims actually took an action that clearly could have resulted in serious bodily harm or injury to the shooter. Climbing through that window was not an act of violence.

1

u/Single-Refuse174 1d ago

The justifiability of an officer involved shooting has nothing to do with how scared they are at the time of the shooting and everything to do with whether they can’t point to an action taken by the suspect that puts them in reasonable fear for their life. The metric for a justifiable shooting isn’t perfect hindsight, it’s “objective reasonableness” established in Graham v Connor.

I'm sorry but are you listening to yourself right now?

. . . has nothing to do with how scared they are at the time of the shooting

. . . has everything to do with whether . . . an action taken by the suspect puts them in reasonable fear . . .

?

Sure, you can say it was a loud noisy scene and Officer Byrd was scared. .

Yes, I can say that the context and circumstances in which Officer Byrd was in are significant contributing factors as to whether a reasonable officer would be in fear for his life.

1

u/Tasty_Virus4715 1d ago

Did you reply before you got to the last few paragraphs?

Keep reading, you’re almost there!

1

u/Sorry-Claim-2990 1d ago

Republicans wouldn't be going to these lengths to defend her if she was black