Still from Officer Ross’s cell phone footage. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
1,388 words
The fatal shooting of anti-ICE activist Renee Good in Minneapolis earlier this month provides an excellent focal point to demonstrate the stark difference between the Left and Right in today’s politics. The primary points of contention here are whether the shooting was justified and whether Ms. Good deserves sympathy. Answering such questions will reveal a lot about a person, and will aid quite handily in determining friends and enemies.
Basically, if you believe the shooting was justified and you are unsympathetic to the fate of the late Ms. Good, then you’re most likely on the Right. If you believe the shooting was unjustified and you sympathize with Ms. Good, then you’re probably on the Left. These aren’t perfect categories, of course, since we’re dealing with human beings. It is also possible for a person who identifies with either the Left or Right to appear somewhere in between. For example, I think Tucker Carlson, bless his heart, might believe the shooting was justified while sympathizing with Good. Yet I feel it’s my job to articulate why the Right-wing reaction is closest to the truth..
First, unsympathetic does not necessarily mean celebratory. I’m not dancing on the woman’s grave, nor am I desirous to get back at the Left for their callous treatment of the death of Charlie Kirk, or Ashli Babbitt, for that matter. In many respects, I wish this incident hadn’t happened at all. Yet, I remain unsympathetic to the fate of Renee Good. The main reason has little to do with her obnoxious recalcitrance in the face of ICE doing its legal duty of rounding up illegal aliens—many of whom are criminals in other respects. Instead, it was about her three decisions which sealed her fate.
She disobeyed a direct order to exit her vehicle, she tried to flee from ICE officers who wished to apprehend her, and she accelerated her vehicle while an officer, Jonathan Ross, was standing in front of it. Had she complied peacefully and been executed anyway with a bullet to the back of the head, then, yes, I would sympathize with her—as odious as I find her to be. Renee Good threw away all pretense of innocence when she chose to be a fugitive and potential murderer on top of already being a lawbreaker.
Secondly, her intent doesn’t matter. Having seen Ross’ cell phone footage, she clearly was turning her steering wheel to the right as she was attempting to speed off. I don’t think she deliberately tried to ram him. Instead, she was being reckless and stupid, and by hitting the gas she utterly disregarded Ross’ life as he stood in front of her. Perhaps if she had been shot after losing control of her vehicle as it skidded towards Ross on the ice for five seconds, then she would have deserved sympathy. But that didn’t happen. The Right in America is never as oppressive as the delusional Left imagines it to be.
Finally, as a member of Minnesota ICE Watch, Renee Good was a trained anti-ICE activist who had ties to Antifa. She had been undermining ICE in Minneapolis the entire day, if not longer, by blocking traffic, honking her horn, and being a general nuisance. She was not only a committed enemy of the Right, but also a foot soldier of the Left who should have known the risks associated with impeding ICE with her automobile before she put on her beanie that morning. She also presumably supported or encouraged the presence of illegal aliens in America, which likewise made her the enemy of whites, despite being white herself.
As for the justification for the shooting, I have seen people online dissecting the various clips of the incident to bolster their preconceived notions of the event. I’ve seen people on the Left complain that Jonathan Ross, who got off multiple shots, didn’t acted in self-defense at all, despite what the Department of Homeland Security tweeted out later that day. He could have jumped out of the way of Good’s vehicle. He could even have sidestepped it and taken out Good’s tires to prevent her escape. After reviewing the various angles of slowed-down footage of the incident it is reasonable to conclude that Jonathan Ross did not have to shoot, let alone kill, Renee Good.
The problem is that at 9:37 am on January 7th Ross did not have access to slowed down footage from multiple camera angles. All he had was his perspective, his training, and 0.7 seconds. Given this, it was perfectly reasonable for him to assume that this committed lawbreaker, this anti-ICE troublemaker—this “f—n’ bitch,” as he would later call her—was trying to ram him. He had drawn his weapon the moment she shifted out of reverse and into drive. Arguments claiming that he had enough time to jump out of the way must contend with the counterargument that she had enough time to hit the brakes once she realized she was staring down the barrel of a gun. It goes both ways.
Claiming that the shooting was unjustified because it wasn’t self-defense also fails to consider that police officers are not regular people. Had a regular person been standing alone in front of Good’s automobile, jumping out of the way would have been appropriate. A person’s top priority when in danger should be self-preservation as well as self-defense. After all, shooting the driver of a car speeding towards you is not going to slow down the car.
But a police officer, especially a federal officer such as an ICE agent, is a not a regular person. He is there to protect society from criminals. Renee Good had already proven herself to be a criminal two times over (at least). How did Ross know she had no intention of ramming him? And what kind of police officer would he have been had he jumped out of the way just to let Renee Good ram someone else? No, Jonathan Ross at that moment represented all of us—including any number of innocent civilians Good might have endangered as she fled the scene—and he had to act like it. And that meant standing firm in front of Good’s vehicle and drawing his weapon if need be.
As for the argument that Ross could have jumped aside and taken out Good’s tires, it’s refuted by the fact that Good had indeed struck him with her car. Ross’ cell phone footage clearly shows this. He was limping in the seconds following the shooting and then was sent to the hospital. If Good was close enough to clip him, then that pretty much rules out any creative maneuver Ross could have taken to apprehend Good while sparing her life. He didn’t have the room, and he didn’t have the time.
And as for whether Ross’ actions were unjustified because they were disproportionate to the threat Good posed—meaning specifically shots two and three which I believe went through her driver’s side window—I have only to reference the Supreme Court decision Plumhoff v. Rickard from 2014. In this decision, Justice Alito states:
If police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.
Renee Good had proven herself to be a threat to public safety when she accelerated her vehicle while a police officer was standing in front of it. Therefore, Officer Ross was perfectly justified in firing his weapon as many times as necessary until the threat ended.
And it’s not only me saying this. It’s Minnesota governor Tim Walz saying it as well, when he signed the Minnesota Police Accountability Act into law in 2020. This law, among other things, gives police officers the right to use deadly force in situations like the one faced by Officer Ross.
According to Grok:
In 2020, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed a police reform bill that amended the state’s statute on the authorized use of deadly force by peace officers, including scenarios involving imminent threats such as a vehicle accelerating toward an officer (which could justify deadly force without requiring actual physical impact, based on the criteria of the threat being reasonably likely to occur absent immediate action).
It seems to me that ICE officer Jonathan Ross deserves more sympathy than Renee Good.
44 comments
The Left assumes that the ICE officer wanted to kill Good, that he consciously made that decision simply because that’s what Fascists do. In the Left’s imagination, ICE is a modern-day Gestapo that is trained to be ruthless towards citizens as part of their Nazi mindset. They imagine that ICE is deliberately brutal to citizens for the purpose of intimidation and out of pure sadism.
That’s the overall “narrative” they have.
Realistically, of course, officer Ross certainly didn’t want to kill a protester. A frustrated ICE officer may decide to beat up obnoxious protesters. But kill? That doesn’t make sense, as the consequences for the officer are huge. Nobody wants to become the next Derek Chauvin.
So, knowing that killing Good was certainly not in Mr Ross’ best interests, it’s basically certain that he wanted to avoid having to fire a deadly shot. That’s how all LEOs and similar officers think – ‘How do I do my job properly without endangering myself and without getting in trouble?’
Leftists are known to not be able to put themselves in their (perceived) opponents’ shoes. This is one example thereof. Mr Ross is imagined as a SA or Gestapo-like Nazi thug and an evil, Trump-supporting bully, doing evil things because that’s what evil people like him do (and want to do, and enjoy doing).
As I said in another comment, leftists (and their kosher enablers) live in a fantasy world where they fight fictional Nazis 24/7. It’s role-playing or larping. It gives meaning to their worthless existence.
On another site, the owner compares this Renée Good to a character from The Handmaid’s Tale. He even provides a video as proof (a demonstration against the “Nazis” of Gilead). It’s exactly like that. This idiot really thought she was the heroine of that stupid series.
In one of the videos directly after she crashes, you can hear her, ummm, buddy say “Why did you have real bullets!?!”
Unreal.
We just look we’re nuts.
This should not be a left or right litmus test. That’s a mistake to treat it that way. It should be about what happened. The plain facts.
Rather than coming up with some analysis that favors, or aligns with some position we want, it’s much better to say in this case something went wrong, and this didn’t need to happen. And this could be us.
There’s a bit of a technical gray zone about his perspective and that’s the best you can say, but that doesn’t mean this outcome was inevitable or it achieved anything.
I’m sure there was some claim I read she had already tried to ram him previously leading up to that, but I can’t find a source for that. If that was case, you could understand how tense that situation could be.
But trying to defend this looks insane.
If there’s more stuff like this, and I think it’s very likely, and the response is the same, we can kiss goodbye to immigration reform. They will open the floodgates the second Trump is out of office and weld them open for good.
There’s no reason right now, to make this policy look like this. It’s doing harm to the policy and the ideas itself.
If the left gets into power again, it is guaranteed they will open the borders, no matter what happens. This is not in our control. Best divest yourself of any such delusions.
We won’t deport anyone if we give in to Leftists pitching fits, and they will do that about anything. Remember George Floyd? Thus we need to just be strong and get through this.
Thanks. I understand. I think there’s a difference of perspective on this.
You feel the stakes are so high, our enemies so deranged and dangerous, and it doesn’t matter what we say, they will do what they want. That we are, in some way in total war Trumpageddon right now.
Although it’s true I can’t control what others do, or how they perceive this – including the whole MAGA circus, my feeling is we’re not quite there enough to carry it this way. And while our enemies may not listen, the midground might, and carrying it this way, looking for reasons to justify this particular case, is a just an extra burden on everybody and the policy, not an asset.
Trump’s problem is he wants to trigger his opponents with whatever he does, rub people’s noses in it. He’s great at doing that. But you gotta be careful with that. People don’t like that. He’s constantly creating new energies and forces against all of this that nobody actually needs.
While it’s impressive what Trump has done overall in this area, this particular policy could also look a little bit more humane in how its executed. It would be more powerful. It should look like a sustainable norm that should be normal stuff, not just Trump and MAGA throwing people into camps and observers and hecklers, however flawed their views, and whatever the technicalities, getting shot.
If some particular thing hasn’t gone well I don’t have problem saying so, not for the benefit of the hardcore left, but for the integrity of the policy itself and its worth, for us, and for regular people, because this policy is not enormously popular even with them, and this latest event is doing exactly what you’d expect, ramping up more organized resistance to the whole thing. And it’s not for any necessary reason.
There’s no effort at all by Trump or MAGA to find a more balanced conciliatory tone on this. It’s just owning the libs. If that’s the tone, it looks like no one is serious about this, and the policy itself isn’t serious.
I agree that with Trump there is far too much posturing on social media, and such behavior does not carry over into public policy.
I believe you have the soundest take I’ve seen on this. Well said!
I don’t agree with those who say that the second or third shots were excessive or unjustified.
Once you commit to using potentially lethal force IN SELF-DEFENSE, then the standard procedure is not one shot to see what happens next but a double-tap.
Basically, it is correct to say that you keep shooting until the threat is gone. However, I don’t agree with some PD policies in recent years where they were trained to do a magazine dump.
Part of that thinking was the paranoia ─ still very much with us after forty years ─ which came following the famous 1986 Miami shootout between two bank robbers and the FBI, where everything imaginable happened that could have possibly gone wrong.
There was a 1988 TV movie with Michael Gross and Ronnie Cox about it which is very good. One bad guy, Michael Lee Platt (David Soul) took a hit to the arm and the 9 mm bullet then penetrated his lung and went deep into his chest but stopped short of hitting his heart. Platt went on shooting, and before the two perpetrators were finally killed, two agents were dead and five more were wounded.
This is why the FBI and police went to 10 mm Auto or .40 caliber instead of 9 mm and started to ditch their .38 caliber wheelguns. Today 9 mm projectiles have been redesigned to have better terminal ballistics. But again, a ten- or fifteen-round “mag dump” with a .40 or 9 mm is hardly necessary when a traffic stop goes bad.
Also, I have mentioned this before, but there is no justification in almost all situations for the proverbial “warning shot.” This is because it is risky to bystanders, and this risk can only be justified when truly firing in self-defense, which is what ICE agent Jonathan Ross did.
And again, shooting out the tires does not work either. This is an unacceptable risk to bystanders, and the car can still be used as a lethal weapon with shot-out tires.
Shooting “fleeing felons” is also against the law, whether it can be done safely or not.
🙂
I think Good was reacting to the commands of her “wife” who ordered her to “drive baby drive!!” when the confrontation was reaching its climax. I’m not sure she would have done that had her “wife” (who was still just outside the car and would have to be left behind) not ordered her to. I think she would have kept her foot off the accelerator long enough for her “wife” to get in and long enough for the agents to finish opening her drive side car door and yanking her from the vehicle with no shooting. The “wife” has already admitted guilt here (it was my fault she said) and should be charged accordingly.
She showed up and interfered with law enforcement doing their prime duty to the country – removing people here illegally.
She blockaded their vehicles denying law enforcement an escape route doing dangerous duty. She then refused to follow orders and get out of her car which would have been for her and everyone’s safety. Instead she drove her car directly at an officer, a police officer not a peace officer.
That is assault with a deadly weapon. Cars can kill. She got her head blown off and she deserved it. That is unfortunate for her and her friends and family. She chose that path and it is sad.
The country is like that ICE officer. It’s back is against the wall in an existential showdown where th deranged, mentally ill and deluded actors acting as tools of a malevolent power structure that threatens our very existence.
The agent showed the path forward in terms of having the resolve, the will and the ability to deal with the threats appropriately.
Now Trump must choose. The homeland or the looting phase of empire. We have to carry on as if we have been abandoned. Trump has to decide now. Will he reclaim a single city for America or will he forfeit it to a hollow empire that will not even defend and maintain its territorial sovereignty.
There is one other thing here that must be said.
This is not an issue of right or left. It is an issue with of the law abiding and the law breaking. These laws have to do with the territorial sovereignty of our country and the maintenance versus the dissolution of citizenship.
The issue therefore is the issue of the survival of the country. This question must be framed as is America a country?
ICE and s there to say yes. Rene Good, Walz, Frey, the invasion sponsors and defenders and Ilhan Omar explicitly say no.
That is the frame. Do you have a country yes or no?
If no, then you are a stateless people without a territory. Those are the stakes. That is how it must be framed and put before Americans. It must be put before them in explicit terms for them to get it. It is up to us to do so.
Both this, and your follow up statement are spot-on Arminius. Thanks!
“No, Jonathon Ross represented all of us – including any number of innocent civilians Good might have endangered as she fled the scene – and he had to act like it.” “Might” have endangered? Where were these endangered innocent civilians? I didn’t see any on the video. (The video showed some bystanders on the sidewalk across the street, opposite from where Good’s car was pointed). So the theoretical existence of innocents, somewhere in the path of Good’s car, after she fled the scene, is justification for shooting her?
“…officers need not stop shooting until the threat is ended.” – The supposed threat (except for your theoretical threat to innocents we can’t see who somehow may end up in the path of the madwoman’s “two-ton killing machine”) ended when Ross got out of the way of Good’s car, which had never been aimed at running him over. Then – Alito’s words imply – officers do need to stop shooting. Meaning: Ross’s last two shots were disproportionate, excessive force, & possibly manslaughter.
I don’t have any sympathy for a dead leftist agitator & declared enemy of my people. I have some sympathy for a law-enforcement officer who got overwhelmed by a sudden rush of events, seemingly threatened for about a second, who overreacted. But, conceding his first shot was justified, Ross should not have continued firing.
ICE is hiring. Go show them how it is done.
I already have.
Hi Jonathan
I pointed out in the essay that unlike all of us, Ross did not have access to minutes of video footage of the incident shot from multiple angles in the 0.7 seconds in which he had to act. Was it incumbent upon him to survey the street for potential victims of a car ramming while Becca Good was taunting him? How did he know what was going to happen? Further, the people Renee Good might have endangered didn’t have to be in that neighborhood. They could have been anywhere at any time in the future.
The last two shots may have been disproportionate to our eyes, but not in the eyes of the officer who had decided not unreasonably that Good was attempting to murder him. I agree they weren’t necessary, but they weren’t inappropriate given the circumstances.
Jonathan?
OK, you make a reasonable case. So do I, IMO. Reasonable people can disagree.
Vagrant Rightist has the best take, I think, in his reply to you at 9:07 pm, Jan. 13.
Wilburn, Sorry I called you Jonathan. And thanks for being reasonable.
Two question though for you and Vagrant Rightist:
1. Would you say Trump was more balanced and conciliatory than Biden or any Democrat when discussing Ashli Babbitt?
2. Trump was certainly balanced and conciliatory when discussing what happened to George Floyd. Did that benefit him or the Right at all?
Thanks.
I don’t know. (I have a hard time watching / listening to Trump, except when he was in “comic campaign mode” in 2016 & 24. The egomania, narcissism, hideously awkward phrasing, belligerent ignorance…it’s just too much.) I do know that Biden & the Left in general were cruel, unfair, & dismissive of Ashli. (Biden has never been acknowledged by the media as the truly vicious bully he was, in contrast to Trump.)
Of course it did Trump & the Right no good. Only a total exposure of the Floyd fraud could have turned the tide in 2020, a deliberate push-back attempt to create a white racial consciousness & backlash against the hysteria (or more, a counter-revolution to what has been happening for decades). Something a major public figure with the POV of Greg Johnson could just possibly have pulled off. But of course we have no one like that. (I’ll be optimistic & add, yet.)
I also believe it’s possible for Trump & Co. to acknowledge the Good shooting was a mistake without compromising the overall effort of mass deportations, by both doubling-down on the essential rightness of deportations & widespread, determined ICE operations in blue cities, while changing rules of engagement just enough to make another Good incident less likely. But is there anyone in Trumpland with the rhetorical ability to explain that? J.D. Vance maybe? As Vagrant Rightist points out, the administration seems focused more on “owning the libs” than in actually having an effective deportation machine that will not soon be crippled, & perhaps destroyed, by the courts, the media, & Republican traitors in Congress.
These are fair questions. I’ve given them some thought and it’s hard to respond, considering the different circumstances and variables and what was on the line in each case and why, and now Trump has made some new remarks perhaps he should just leave it at that.
Short answer, in an ideal world which we don’t have, they would have slightly different responses for different reasons. If it’s just down to ‘winning’ the answer may be different, but short term winning this way may come with a cost later.
Any man who has ever heard a woman say to them “It’s okay, I’m not mad at you” knows that trouble will follow.
“She was being reckless and stupid”. This case shows that extreme left-wing White people have a death wish–they lack survival instincts and will bring us all down if not stopped. I’m beginning to think these Whites pose the biggest threat to our survival.
Excellent article that explains to those who are confused, that the agent followed protocol. I personally don’t care about her sexual proclivities or appearance (although that face looks like it needed to be punched). The fact is that if you fancy yourself a revolutionary, be smart about it–especially if you have kids and something to lose.
There is another aspect to this shooting that justifies it. There was another ICE officer with his arm in the driver side window when she attempted to pull away. Previously the officer was himself caught in a fleeing vehicle in another incident months before and was seriously hurt.
Protecting his fellow officer must’ve been on his mind when he made the split second decision to shoot.
Great article! If I were the president, I would rub it into Antifa’s face by awarding Jonathan Ross the “Medal Of Freedom” on the site where Good was shot. 🙃
That would be some chutzpah!
Trump could at least award every ICE officer injured in the line of duty a Purple Heart—that would be cool. 🙃
In this time of national turmoil, I believe what’s best for all of us is to hear what our stunning and brave purveyor of Black Girl Magic, none other than poet-laureate Amanda Gorman, has to say about this incident.
For Renee Nicole Good
Killed by I.C.E. on January 7, 2026
by Amanda Gorman
They say she is no more,
That there her absence roars,
Blood-blown like a rose.
Iced wheels flinched & froze.
Now, bare riot of candles,
Dark fury of flowers,
Pure howling of hymns.
If for us she arose,
Somewhere, in the pitched deep of our grief,
Crouches our power,
The howl where we begin,
Straining upon the edge of the crooked crater
Of the worst of what we’ve been.
Change is only possible,
& all the greater,
When the labour
& bitter anger of our neighbors
Is moved by the love
& better angels of our nature.
What they call death & void,
We know is breath & voice;
In the end, gorgeously,
Endures our enormity.
You could believe departed to be the dawn
When the blank night has so long stood.
But our bright-fled angels will never be fully gone,
When they forever are so fiercely Good.
Thanks for the “poem”. And I hope Trump uses it to dump the whole idea of having a “poet laureate” at all. We had better poetry before there was one.
The comments on X indicate there are a lot of people who have never driven a vehicle on slick, icy roadways. Ice on a roadway is just frozen water and no matter how thin, it reacts with each car or truck going forward. We’ve had people pull out at perfectly safe speeds when the light turned green, only to see their vehicle going sideways. It’s one of the reasons why all the snowbelt states have laws that indicate a safe speed for the conditions might be lots slower than the posted speed limit.
I’m sure Ross knew this and he was right to shoot. Tires spinning on even partially covered roadways are tricky in the best of times. In a tense law enforcement situation it could have been deadly for him. I agree with those who think Ross should get a medal of some sort. He prevented the madwoman from doing damage elsewhere, along with saving himself.
That is definitely not Keats; it is not even human! 🙃
Frankly, I find it awe inspiring. She is a national treasure and hopefully someday we will be blessed with a fifty foot statue of her and her radiant beauty. In sweatpants and slippers, looking at her phone without a smile on her face, of course.
There’s worse out there:
BIPOC song by Molly Gawler – YouTube
That’s pure cringe. There had been a time when this thing called “the Left” focused on proletarians and the struggle against capitalist exploitation. At least then there was some substance to what they said and believed (despite so many of them being harebrained). Sometime in the 1960s the working class was ditched and it has been pure minority worship and LGBTQ adoration. These “Left” white people are real world Eloi. Their dreams for the proletariat crashed and now capitalists (Soros, etc.) fund their flighty pursuits. Yes, even capitalists are forgiven so long as they are “progressive” — whatever that word really means.
O. Here we go with blacks and plagiarism again. This was stolen directly from On Learning to Disect Fetal Pigs.
“Eins, zwei, drei, vier,
Vater braucht ein Bier.
Vier, drei, zwei, eins,
Mutter braucht keins.”
“What they call death & void,
We know is breath & voice;
In the end, gorgeously,
Endures our enormity.”
That’s the key to the whole thing! And pretty menacing, dare I tell you. We all know that somebody’s enormity endures even without food stamps. But now it looks like a political pledge!
I also think the text is incorrect. It should be:
“What they call death & void,
We know is [George Floyd]…”
better angels of our nature. steven pinker, sue her.
A solid analysis. Essentially, Good fucked around and found out. I very rarely use profanity in a comment, but that phrase is very apt in this situation. It should a signal to the more rational among the leftists to cease and desist from such behavior, if for no other reason than self-preservation. For those freakish leftists too demented to get the message, their self-deletion is welcome. Society and the gene pool will be better because of it.
I wonder if Ross would hesitate to shoot had the aggressor been a black woman instead of a White lesbian.
Massad Ayoub (sp?) wrote a self defense book and I believe there is much about defending yourself from a vehicle coming your way.
If Good’s front tire ‘pins’ Ross’s leg, he could be trapped and be run over and killed.
We can have bumper stickers that say Drive Baby Drive! Of course the leftists would think that’s in support of their cause.
It’s too bad that things ended this way. The greater tragedy, though, is that she was indoctrinated into becoming a Social Justice Warrior willing to hit a federal agent with her car, forfeiting her life in the process, all on behalf of Somali fraudsters who don’t belong here.
I don’t agree with those who say that the second or third shots were excessive or unjustified.
Once you commit to using potentially lethal force IN SELF-DEFENSE, then the standard procedure is not one shot to see what happens next but a double-tap.
Basically, it is correct to say that you keep shooting until the threat is gone. However, I don’t agree with some PD policies in recent years where they were trained to do a magazine dump.
Part of that thinking was the paranoia ─ still very much with us after forty years ─ which came following the famous 1986 Miami shootout between two bank robbers and the FBI, where everything imaginable happened that could have possibly gone wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout
There was a 1988 TV movie with Michael Gross and Ronnie Cox about it which is very good. One bad guy, Michael Lee Platt (David Soul) took a hit to the arm and the 9mm bullet then penetrated his lung and went deep into his chest but stopped short of hitting his heart. Platt went on shooting, and before the two perpetrators were finally killed, two agents were dead and five more were wounded.
This is why the FBI and police went to 10 mm Auto or .40 caliber instead of 9 mm and started to ditch their .38 caliber wheelguns. Today 9 mm projectiles have been redesigned to have better terminal ballistics. But again, a ten- or fifteen-round “mag dump” with a .40 or 9 mm is hardly necessary when a traffic stop goes bad.
Also, I have mentioned this before, but there is no justification in almost all situations for the proverbial “warning shot.” This is because it is risky to bystanders, and this risk can only be justified when truly firing in self-defense, which is what ICE agent Jonathan Ross did.
And again, shooting out the tires does not work either. This is an unacceptable risk to bystanders, and the car can still be used as a lethal weapon with shot-out tires.
Shooting “fleeing felons” is also against the law, whether it can be done safely or not.
🙂
[Sorry, somehow this was a duplicate post.]
Emptying the magazine is not just about eliminating the immediate threat. It is also about the future threat of the offender testifying in court with the MSM turning it into a circus. Dead men tell no tales.
Three bullets, not a whole magazine.
Renee Good’s father equates the death of his daughter and her “bad choices” that led to it with the Bible verse from Colossians 3:6 that says: “Because of these, the wrath of God cometh upon the children of disobedience.” The father, the tree from which this rotten fruit called Renee has fallen far away from, who says he blames nobody, not ICE not nobody, goes on to say that had she been “walking in the Spirit” she wouldn’t have been there at all. Father knows best.
Spencer: According to Grok: […]
—
Forget Grok, Spencer. Just because it’s launched by the alleged “world’s richest man” does not mean information found there will be any more accurate than what WikiJews tell us when it comes to matters concerning anything pro-White.
This skirmish in Minneapolis has nothing to do with any phony fight ruse between Left and Right, as someone commented, but leave it to so-called leftists and rightists to squabble over its details.
To get beyond today’s headlines, let’s think long term — in other words preservation of our race, starting with separation of the best of our people from Jews and other non-Whites and from whites who enjoy the status quo. Wolf Stoner explained it well this week with “Honor” at nationalvanguard.org:
All human ideas and drives are rooted in biology. True honor is inseparable from pure biological identity. A mongrel can’t be honorable — by definition. Yes, he can have his own very different understanding of the word, but it is bound to be something much lower than that possessed by the initial, higher, breed.
We need honor in order to stay on the right course in life, as we pass among innumerable distractions and traps. True honor is a light that illuminates the arduous upward path.
Honor is especially valuable at a time of social collapse, when society ceases to provide a containing behavioral framework for the masses. The remaining honorable few can then become beacons for the lost…
Read more at the link.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.