What constitutes "Vehicular Assault" as a criminal ct?

[Boltfan]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

When was this thread moved to the sandbox from the PF?

Normally there’s a notice when that happens.

As of now this thread is in it's original place. I can't speak to if it was moved and moved back.

Appreciate those continuing the discussion politely without all the personal attacks. It is capable of being done.

Many of you regular Political Forum participants should take note.

[RX792P]

Sounds a bit extreme (and untruthful)

“This deranged, lunatic woman was trying to ram him over with her vehicle and was using that vehicle as a weapon, which justifies domestic terrorism,” Leavitt said on Fox News.

[RX792P]

Fake AI generated images/social media posts do not constitute vehicular assault...

Several things wrong with this 'image'....

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

I take it you're saying that when she broke traction, we can't know which way her wheels were facing, but it wasn't right. That's confusing, that we both don't know but know which way they weren't facing (which happens to work in his favor).
The last image of her on his video shows her turning the steering wheel right. I don't see the vehicle moving before that moment. I can only tell it's moving as he pans to the front of the vehicle.

I don't see where in the video he was struck by her vehicle. If he's practicing Fed's strategy of putting themselves in possible jeopardy to justify use of deadly force, it would be convenient if his left hand, holding the camera, which extended would leave him out of harm's way, struck her vehicle.

I didn't say I didn't know which way her wheels were turned when she first accelerated, only the degree to which the wheels were turned left. I don't know how far they were pointed to the left and neither do you. Are you an expert on the steering geometry of the car she was driving? I'm doubting that. You are making an educated guess at best.
If you want proof that the officer was struck by her vehicle you need to look at more video angles. I've seen the officer's body cam footage and you can see and hear that he is struck by her vehicle. I've seen where multiple camera angles are synced up as well and that's where you can see her wheels pointed left when she initially starts to accelerate and her front driver's side wheel spins. From the moment she starts to move toward the office till he fired was less than 2 seconds.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by RX792P

Not just policy....TRAINING and EXPERIENCE.

It's my understanding that this is part of fundamental 'traffic stop 101' training.

Maybe I'm a bit 'biased' as I have worked auto races as flagger, responder and track safety for many years. Part of training is don't put yourself in front of a stopped race car when the driver is still in the car or when the car may move.

I do appreciate your participation as a corner worker as I have a car that I run at a couple tracks in Texas. However, I see a substantive difference between a disabled race car and a road going minivan.

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I do appreciate your participation as a corner worker as I have a car that I run at a couple tracks in Texas. However, I see a substantive difference between a disabled race car and a road going minivan.

True...but no difference between the two in basic training of not putting yourself in a position to be hit by a vehicle if it moves forward, intentionally or not.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by RX792P

True...but no difference between the two in basic training of not putting yourself in a position to be hit by a vehicle if it moves forward, intentionally or not.

I understand that it's imprudent and I think I'd have a hard time doing it but what strikes me about this situation (no pun intended) is that when operating a motor vehicle on public roads you have a legal right to assume that other drivers will obey the rules of the road. Does the officer have the same right? As I've said twice now, had she obeyed the lawful command of the other officer she'd still be alive. Her actions were imprudent as well.

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I understand that it's imprudent and I think I'd have a hard time doing it but what strikes me about this situation (no pun intended) is that when operating a motor vehicle on public roads you have a legal right to assume that other drivers will obey the rules of the road. Does the officer have the same right? As I've said twice now, had she obeyed the lawful command of the other officer she'd still be alive. Her actions were imprudent as well.

If you believe the ICE side rhetoric, she had already flaunted the law so many ways...why would one expect her to 'obey the rules of the road'?

That aside...if you're LE accosting someone in a vehicle for cause, there's absolutely no presupposition that they're going to 'obey the rules of the road'.

Yeah, Good screwed up by attempting to flee. But it certainly was not:
"domestic terrorism"
" one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle"
“violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.”
'An ICE vehicle had become stuck in the snow and officers were attempting to push it out'
“left-wing network”
"aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator"
“This is classic terrorism,”
"And then she ran him over. She didn’t try to run him over. She ran him over”

Hey, LE is a tough, scary job. ICE's job is made even tougher and scarier due to the overwrought orders being given to them by their highest management. I'll even give the guy the benefit of the doubt that the combination of his mistake of standing in front of the car, his recent bad experience and the extremely limited response time...unfortunately, he made a bad decision.

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I didn't say I didn't know which way her wheels were turned when she first accelerated, only the degree to which the wheels were turned left. I don't know how far they were pointed to the left and neither do you. Are you an expert on the steering geometry of the car she was driving? I'm doubting that. You are making an educated guess at best.
If you want proof that the officer was struck by her vehicle you need to look at more video angles. I've seen the officer's body cam footage and you can see and hear that he is struck by her vehicle. I've seen where multiple camera angles are synced up as well and that's where you can see her wheels pointed left when she initially starts to accelerate and her front driver's side wheel spins. From the moment she starts to move toward the office till he fired was less than 2 seconds.

Where can I find his body cam footage?

[RX792P]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Where can I find his body cam footage?

Not bodycam footage. Handheld phone camera footage.

One of many sources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7yv4524gqo

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by RX792P

Not bodycam footage. Handheld phone camera footage.

One of many sources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7yv4524gqo

Thanks, I know that footage, but Ducbutter seems pretty adammant he's seen bodycam, so I want to make sure I'm looking at the same thing.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by RX792P

If you believe the ICE side rhetoric, she had already flaunted the law so many ways...why would one expect her to 'obey the rules of the road'?

That aside...if you're LE accosting someone in a vehicle for cause, there's absolutely no presupposition that they're going to 'obey the rules of the road'.

Yeah, Good screwed up by attempting to flee. But it certainly was not:
"domestic terrorism"
" one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle"
“violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer.”
'An ICE vehicle had become stuck in the snow and officers were attempting to push it out'
“left-wing network”
"aimed her car at a law enforcement officer and pressed on the accelerator"
“This is classic terrorism,”
"And then she ran him over. She didn’t try to run him over. She ran him over”

Hey, LE is a tough, scary job. ICE's job is made even tougher and scarier due to the overwrought orders being given to them by their highest management. I'll even give the guy the benefit of the doubt that the combination of his mistake of standing in front of the car, his recent bad experience and the extremely limited response time...unfortunately, he made a bad decision.

Her being accosted (verbally) does not grant her the right to flee and strike the officer.
None of your quotes can be attributed to me.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Thanks, I know that footage, but Ducbutter seems pretty adammant he's seen bodycam, so I want to make sure I'm looking at the same thing.

My mistake. Hand held. A difference without distinction. Still the perspective of the struck officer. Nice try though.

You also project a lot of surety for someone who hadn't seen any of the critical footage. Doesn't surprise me much.

And the idea that you want to try to insult me and then ask me to do your research is comical.

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

My mistake. Hand held. A difference without distinction. Still the perspective of the struck officer. Nice try though.

You also project a lot of surety for someone who hadn't seen any of the critical footage. Doesn't surprise me much.

And the idea that you want to try to insult me and then ask me to do your research is comical.

I've been considering your points, and looking at the video again, because it's nice to let ideas in, at least I enjoy it. I know some people would rather not.

Handheld vs body is a huge difference when it comes to those frames when he might have been hit. I already explained that. It's HUGE. That should be obvious.

Haven't asked you to do any research (Turns out I asked you where to find something that doesn't exist. Required no research at all.). Just want to be looking at the same evidence. Sheessh.

After the last time I see the wheels turned left, as Ross comes around to the front of the vehicle to position himself to shoot, Good backs up. She turns the wheels to the right before she starts forward.

I'm sure there are some 2-second situations. The only reason to call this one of those is to justify Jonathan Ross killing Renee Good. I've explained that, too. Notice you haven't been reading what I write. Np, Honey. I get it. I'm not looking forward to when I have nothing to learn.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

It was a likely a murder committed by an unvetted masked thug carrying out the orders of an idiot trying to curry favor with her boss, a wannabe dictator.

Hopefully a Minnesota court agrees and charges them all before Trump hits us with his next big thing … invasion of Iran… then all bets are off.

an incorrect assumption. he's an Iraq war vet and with DHS since 2013.



https://nypost.com/2026/01/09/us-new...-what-we-know/

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

When the officer was on the passenger side of the vehicle his body cam showed the wheels tuned to the left. The question is, how far to the left. Full lock? Half lock? The answer is I don't know, you don't know and the officer didn't know. At the instant she started to accelerate (and broke traction) which way were her wheels facing?
Here's a clue, it wasn't to the right. Then she began to turn the steering wheel to the right and accelerate again. How far to the right? I don't know, you don't know and the officer didn't know. At about this point he was struck by her vehicle and he fired through the front windshield. And all this movement on her part took place inside of 2 seconds.
Pretty sure we've all heard by now that the officer had "taken a ride" on some protester's car in the recent past and required medical attention. Do think that maybe that had some bearing on how he reacted there? But you want us to believe you'd have had the presence of mind to simply keep your weapon holstered? I call bullshit on that. No doubt you've watched replays of the videos ad nauseum and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you still don't know everything about this event. Not a single soul on this board does.
I still stand by the statement in my original post that had Ms. Good simply obeyed the command of the officer to exit the vehicle she would still be with us. I've heard folks claim that she didn't comply because she did not know who the officers were but that shit just doesn't wash. She was there specifically to harass ICE and she'd been doing it for hours. She knew exactly who they were.

indeed. this woman belonged to some far left outfit called "Ice Watch". their purpose isn't peaceful protests, it's to intentionally disrupt ICE actions which is of course ILLEGAL.



note that it's clear now that this woman while following agents for an extended period of time intentionally blocked/impeded traffic for almost 4 minutes. also note the other bitch was let out when the car blocked the road so she could film.



Renee Nicole Good was Minneapolis ‘ICE Watch’ ‘warrior’ who trained to resist feds before shooting


https://nypost.com/2026/01/08/us-new...fore-shooting/

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

I just watched the video for the second time.

First, on the wheels turned to the left, clearly it's less than half lock. I can see that and he could see that. I won't tell you what you see.

I take it you're saying that when she broke traction, we can't know which way her wheels were facing, but it wasn't right. That's confusing, that we both don't know but know which way they weren't facing (which happens to work in his favor).
The last image of her on his video shows her turning the steering wheel right. I don't see the vehicle moving before that moment. I can only tell it's moving as he pans to the front of the vehicle.

I don't see where in the video he was struck by her vehicle. If he's practicing Fed's strategy of putting themselves in possible jeopardy to justify use of deadly force, it would be convenient if his left hand, holding the camera, which extended would leave him out of harm's way, struck her vehicle.

I have no doubt that his prior experience helps us understand why he killed her. I also think it works against exonerating him--he wasn't just shooting to punish her, the "fucking bitch."

You know what, I'm not LE, so I expect much more of them than how I would react in this situation. Asking what I would do is a worthless standard. They signed up for the job, trained for the job, and should be expected to protect public safety, not just themselves.
You say all this took place in two seconds. From the moment he exits his car until he kills her is forty seconds. If he's a professional, he's spending all that time deescalating the situation, trying to make it end well for all involved. The it-all-happened-so-fast-defense was shot down by the highly pro-LE Supreme Court recently. The standard is the totality of events, so "he didn't have time to think" doesn't wash.

the wheels were to the left as she reversed then she cut the wheels RIGHT to pull away. that would have briefly pointed the car toward the officer. i don't think the woman's intent was to hit the officer she was trying to get away. and her now widow told her "just go!" after trying to open the passenger door.



some relevant new video from the other tread on this topic

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

sounds like you've also seen the new video.






the videos show the agent was struck by the car and both women were mouthing off

if these idiot warriors had pulled over and yelled " FUCK YOU ICE!" while filming the 1st amendment would cover their asses seven days to sunday.



the moment these idiot social justice warriors blocked the road they became agitators and any beat cop would have told them to move their vehicle. ICE had told them before to stop interfering and they had plenty of time to leave.