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.
Wtf is wrong with you? How else do you expect assaulting a cop with your car to turn out? Violent people should not be viewed as more that pieces of shit. That goes for cops too if they're doing it to innocent people by the way, but that's not the situation being discussed.
And by the way if a citizen kills a cop who is randomly trying to murder them i'd be on the citizen's side too. We live in a country where that situation usually results in absurd police and prosecutor reaction. We won't fix this if you do not defend cops human rights to self defense. Human beings have an extremely strong right to self defense.
Obviously if it was not a cop it would not have been an arrest, but if it was a random person getting running over rather than a cop nothing about my conclusion would change, they would be within their rights to shoot her.
"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.
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.
Trials aren't held for obvious outcomes, the moment she hit the cop with her car there's no reason for that. I understand some people think that violently attacking someone "with power" like a cop can be justified but there is no chance of convicting a cop of anything in this situation. Out here in the real world there are constant abuses by police of non-violent people and even they aren't put on trial for it. Start there.
Frankly there are a lot of cops who need the death penalty for horrific abuse of their positions to rape and kill and yet just get juggled between departments instead, it's insane. And you're here whining about the obvious justified self defense for political reasons, it's stupid.
The fact is hitting the cop with her car is on video and she knew she was under arrest after spending the day blocking the road. You do not get to rewrite reality with your politically motivated desire for a trial.
> Jonathan Ross is the only person in that interaction that violently attacked someone resulting in death.
Yeah, because he killed her in justified self defense with pretty good aim in a snap situation might i add.
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.
It's scary how insane this reply is considering i clearly stated the reason she got shot is hitting a cop with her car. It is not legal to execute someone for evading arrest but violent assault with a deadly weapon justifies proportional use of force. If you hit a cop with your car while evading arrest getting shot is a given.
Replying in this edit due to HN rate limit (it's like 4 posts? crazy, can't even hold a conversation)
> But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee, who again you are not giving the presumption of innocence that I am at least giving the officer
I do not believe her intent was to attack, i believe she intended to escape regardless of whether she ran over the cop. I don't think there's a meaningful difference here. My presumption of innocence for rene good extends this far already but given she was looking directly at the cop who was directly in front of her car while slamming on the gas if i was on a theoretical jury in a theoretical trial for her, i would convict her. We do not have a higher standard available.
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, who again you are not giving the presumption of innocence that I am at least giving the officer
I really don't care at all what a dishonest legal offense (it would be offense not defense remember, if you want the cop prosecuted) would claim when the evidence is so clear and it's only politically motivated insane people saying otherwise. Furthermore "intent to attack" Is actually irrelevant when 1. she did "attack" the cop by hitting him with her car and 2. the cop doesn't have to guess at her intent when he is already being assaulted with a deadly weapon.
> politically motivated terrorist acts such as ... organized doxing campaigns
Clearly she's party to a criminal conspiracy to dox federal agents. It was benevolent of them to let her off with nothing more than a warning to cease and desist.
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.
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
> 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 : )
First, your disrespectful lower casing of her name shows exactly who you are and what you are trying to do.
Second, no, she did not. We all have seen the videos from every angle. Jonathan Ross, the murderer, was not in danger.
I agree, the lack of accountability of ICE agents abusing their power and murdering US citizens is ridiculous.
Serious question - wtf is wrong with you?
And by the way if a citizen kills a cop who is randomly trying to murder them i'd be on the citizen's side too. We live in a country where that situation usually results in absurd police and prosecutor reaction. We won't fix this if you do not defend cops human rights to self defense. Human beings have an extremely strong right to self defense.
Obviously if it was not a cop it would not have been an arrest, but if it was a random person getting running over rather than a cop nothing about my conclusion would change, they would be within their rights to shoot her.
> 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.
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.
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
Frankly there are a lot of cops who need the death penalty for horrific abuse of their positions to rape and kill and yet just get juggled between departments instead, it's insane. And you're here whining about the obvious justified self defense for political reasons, it's stupid.
The fact is hitting the cop with her car is on video and she knew she was under arrest after spending the day blocking the road. You do not get to rewrite reality with your politically motivated desire for a trial.
> Jonathan Ross is the only person in that interaction that violently attacked someone resulting in death.
Yeah, because he killed her in justified self defense with pretty good aim in a snap situation might i add.
Replying in this edit due to HN rate limit (it's like 4 posts? crazy, can't even hold a conversation)
> But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee, who again you are not giving the presumption of innocence that I am at least giving the officer
I do not believe her intent was to attack, i believe she intended to escape regardless of whether she ran over the cop. I don't think there's a meaningful difference here. My presumption of innocence for rene good extends this far already but given she was looking directly at the cop who was directly in front of her car while slamming on the gas if i was on a theoretical jury in a theoretical trial for her, i would convict her. We do not have a higher standard available.
But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee, who again you are not giving the presumption of innocence that I am at least giving the officer
Jonathan Ross is the only person in that interaction that violently attacked someone resulting in death.
> politically motivated terrorist acts such as ... organized doxing campaigns
Clearly she's party to a criminal conspiracy to dox federal agents. It was benevolent of them to let her off with nothing more than a warning to cease and desist.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/coun...
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,
There is no conspiracy here.
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.
no repercussions from the government, yes, people should be free to write whatever they want
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.
The States need to grow a pair and start arresting these agents who break the law.