Anonymous #4 3d

He’s looking worse than Biden is, so fingers are still crossed 🤞

21

Anonymous #5 3d

it was ruled a murder but the victim started the fight?

-2

Anonymous vintage_trampler 3d

“Starting the fight” doesn’t justify literally stabbing someone in the heart. It was never that serious until he took it there

1

Anonymous #5 3d

things escalate, that why you don't start fights with random people

6

Anonymous #6 3d

True, you never know who will become psychotic and stab you for no good reason

0

Anonymous #7 3d

So do you call her mom? Or sister? How does that work?

6

Anonymous #7 3d

I just wish you guys would stop being bootlickers for one goddamn second. “Mmmmm I just loooove the boys in blue, I looooove ice agents. Please tread on me!! Please come to my house and fuck my wife!!” You guys are pathetic

10

Anonymous #7 3d

Actually the legal burden of learning and conducting the law is on the officer, not the average citizen. See as an officer, they have to know the law and procedures around traffic stops. They have the training and are expected to make the right calls. He instead went directly against protocol by endangering himself in an attempt to force her to comply with unlawful orders. You can’t be mad at her for making a small mistake and NOT be mad at him without being hypocritical

11

Anonymous OP 3d

Ignorance is not an accepted defense for criminal activity in any U.S. courtroom, though. Both parties are responsible for knowing the law and acting accordingly.

0

Anonymous #4 3d

What act of hers and how much of it was done in ignorance, and what act of hers and how much of it was done out of panic due to an unprofessional and chaotic traffic stops? We can’t ever know what her reaction would have been had the officers handled the situation according to protocol, hence the reason for the officers being the primary instigators. Had they did their job, they might not have killed a random woman that wasn’t even doing anything. That’s the entire reason FOR the above protocols

9

Anonymous OP 3d

It limits the possibilities of accidental murders or mistakes on both parties. It was an easily avoidable situation that the officers decided to play hard and fast and against protocol, as they have been well documented boasting about doing, and finally learned why it says to explicitly NOT do what they did. It doesn’t matter how she reacted, especially considering she wasn’t doing anything explicitly dangerous or threatening and the contradicting orders being shouted at her by unknown armed men

5

Anonymous OP 3d

It doesn’t matter. Ignorance does not mean a person is allowed to violate criminal statutes. Cry and whine about it all you want, but that’s reality.

0

Anonymous #4 3d

I ask you again, what was she being ignorant of? What law was she breaking that warranted the reaction it had? Sounds like you’d rather blame a random person for freaking out then a trained officer of the law for violating their own laws

5

Anonymous OP 3d

Dude come on. “Freaking out” might explain hitting a federal agent with a car but it doesn’t excuse it. Yes, they could have followed protocol better and maybe it would’ve avoided the situation, but she freaked out and hit him with her car. At that point she’s still held accountable for her actions

-1

Anonymous OP 3d

Either she was ignorant of the law and broke it, or she knowingly broke it. Those are literally the only two options, dumbass.

-1

Anonymous #2 3d

Making a mistake and being ignorant of the law are 2 very different things lmfao. Everyone knows you aren’t supposed to hit people with cars and to listen to the cops, you’re claiming she was ignorant or unaware of a law though. I’m asking what law you’re claiming she was unaware of that she broke. Because that’s the context of your entire premise is the denotative and lawful meaning of ignorance

11

Anonymous #4 3d

Funnily enough if you have read any case reports or precedent summaries you’d understand that situations like this have already happened and it is never as cut and dry as the you put it. There’s a very real human factor to “freaking out” and courts have sided with the drivers in the past in similar situations instigated by improper training and/or procedures from officers. In r again there’s a real and historical reason for these ignored protocols that were responsible for the entire chaos

3

Anonymous #2 3d

Also while I agree with you that it’s undeniable that she did in fact graze him with her car, he also moved back in front of the vehicle after it was already moving forward. You can’t blame a driver for hitting a pedestrian that stepped out into the street without looking, but you can’t blame blame a woman for grazing an officer ignoring basic grade school and cop protocol after jumping in front of her moving vehicle? Once again, you can’t hold this view without being hypocritical and biased

3

Anonymous OP 3d

It is that simple. It’s the simplest thing in the world. You’re making the argument based on consequences—something I never mentioned. You are the one who made the asinine claim that she isn’t the one with the responsibility to act within the law. She wasn’t acting within the law. And for the third and final time, that ignorance doesn’t grant her special consideration nor excuse her behavior. Had she not been violating the law, she’d be alive and well today.

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

What law did she violate to begin with? From my knowledge she was parked on the side of the road assisting a traffic backup when the agents were driving through the congestion road and made the stop. They gave conflicting orders, and she was moving her vehicle back as an officer walked from right to left, and then back to the right as she was moving forward. Don’t dance around your claims and not explain them when asked to. What was she ignorant of and what crime did she commit?

7

Anonymous OP 3d

Dude come onnnnn. In what world is being parked perpendicularly to a one way residential road “parked on the side of the road?” Especially when their stated goal of being there in the first place was not to “assist a traffic backup” but rather to specifically monitor ICE presence in the community. She was blocking the road and directing traffic on her own lol. I didn’t realize it was even possible to twist basic facts about what happened to the extent you just did

3

Anonymous #2 3d

Says the one denying basic precedents and court rulings 🤷‍♂️ like it’s been used in defenses before in similar situations where the officers were found liable for causing the circumstances of the results. And dude you can only believe what ICE said and deny what eye witnesses have said all you want, I for one value different perspectives. To each their own I suppose

1

Anonymous OP 3d

Precedents and previous court rulings don’t change what’s on video. Regardless of your opinion on liability, the series of events you just described are not factual

2

Anonymous #2 3d

Bro multiple videos from witnesses show her directing congested traffic, boo her all you want for not being “certified” or whatever but it does t constitute ice making as aggressive of a stop as they did. The series of events I described in fact did happen, you just refuse to admit those videos into the “considered” category because it isn’t what Trumps Team has tried to market to you. Just like their claims of “no conflicting orders” being given. More lies you must believe still?

0

Anonymous OP 3d

“she was parked on the side of the road” In other words, you haven’t seen it and haven’t looked into it at all. 😂

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

Pretty sure there’s videos of her parked on the side of the road before the officers showed up, if not then I did misspeak. All that does is give more justification for the stop itself, but not their mis-use of force and conflicting orders which caused the actual circumstances. You’re hoping one of these stick, aren’t you?

1

Anonymous OP 3d

In other words you can justify the stop and intervention all you want and as much as you want, but it does t justify the officers going against protocol and using self endangering tactics in what was an obviously chaotic environment. Because that’s what killed her, was the chaos of those few seconds. The officers had the training and duty to control at least their own interactions with the situation and they chose wrong according to their own protocols. Otherwise we’d have her testimony too

1

Anonymous OP 3d

If you’re gonna work your way backwards from her actions and say it was their fault, why not work your way back one more step and say she had the training and duty (being a normal law-abiding citizen) to not park perpendicularly in middle of the road and then antagonize federal officers? Why stop just there?

0

Anonymous #2 3d

Because the situation went on further from there lmfao. They proceeded to give contradicting orders, broke protocol and endangered themselves when she had made her intentions obvious. You’re the only one beating around the bush that is who’s responsible for her death, which we’ve already clarified that while she made some mistakes the officers had the authority and training to be responsible for the situation. Her mistakes are anticipated within their protocols that they should have followed

4

Anonymous OP 3d

“She wasn’t breaking the law before she started breaking the law.”

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

I never said she never broke the law, hell I admitted it just moments ago that she could have lmao. The stop itself could be totally legal and justified for all her death cares. I’m saying they didn’t commit the stop correctly, they screwed it up 🤣 you already admitted that they screwed up too lol

7

Anonymous OP 3d

Could have? That’s not an admission of anything. She did. Period.

-1

Anonymous #4 3d

Holy moving the goal posts 😭

3

Anonymous OP 2d

You really should stop using expressions unless you understand what they mean.

-1

Anonymous #4 2d

And there’s the crash out-cop out argument

0

Anonymous #4 2d

I don’t really understand what your argument even is here. “she wasn’t innocent” isn’t a justification of her death or the blatant process violations of the officers. Even if we take it to the extreme and say renee fully consciously and intentionally broke the law, that doesn’t excuse breaking procedure, endangering everyone, or ending her life. If they viewed her as a criminal, correctly or not, that would be all the more reason to *not* rush the vehicle the way they did.

2

Anonymous #10 2d

Thank you for putting it in better words 😅

1

Anonymous #10 2d

My argument has been the same all along. It isn’t complicated. Dumbfuck McGee OP here said it is primarily the officer’s responsibility to learn and act within the law. I said it is also a citizen’s responsibility to learn and act within the law. Despite the obvious truth to this statement, OP has been triggered and crying about it ever since.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

And here you are once again using an expression that doesn’t even fit. I feel sorry for your parents and your teachers. Jesus fucking christ.

1

Anonymous #4 2d

Only one throwing a tantrum is you buddy, everyone reading the replies can see it too… I don’t have any issue with what you’re saying now other than you equating the responsibility between the parties. And you’re so mad about that that you’re relying on little quipy insults and jabs now

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Both parties are equally responsible for knowing and acting within the law. That’s a fact. No matter how much it bothers you to hear it, it’s true.

1

Anonymous #4 2d

Lmfao you’re STILL trying to argue that her being parked on the side of the road/in the road is the same level of infraction as her what the officers did 😭 not even in court would they treat these as the same, an officer disobeying the law and procedures in the manners done HAVE BEEN FOUND LIABLE for the situations that unfolded after their mistakes before, in similar situations as this. You waving your hands and insisting on an obviously wrong cop out doesn’t matter, it’s true period.

1

Anonymous OP 2d

No matter what crime was committed, the officers HAVE TO conduct the stop according to procedures and protocol. ICE/Border is ignoring those protocols and after enough situations, their inability to follow procedures caused chaotic and dangerous situations in multiple cases not just this one. Them failing to stop her correctly caused the situation to devolve significantly and likely could have been contained and handled had they followed their script. Her specific crime doesn’t matter at all

4

Anonymous OP 2d

See how many words you have to try to use to avoid the actually reality of it? Citizens have a responsibility to know the law and act within the criminal statutes. Period.

-1

Anonymous #4 2d

Yup, and yet cops have MORE of a responsibility because of their job and purpose. I’ve literally said this and clarified your mis quoting multiple times now

5

Anonymous #4 2d

And did you actually try to discredit me because I “wrote a lot of words” LMAO

1

Anonymous OP 2d

When you use a lot of words to say nothing at all, yeah.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

Cops do not have more of a responsibility. They have the same responsibility. Go break the law and try to use that as a defense.

-1

Anonymous #4 2d

When did I say that people can break the law and feign ignorance? Quote me because you sure seem to have it in your head that I did. Cops DO have more of a responsibility, if you can’t understand how authority is a responsibility in itself then thank GOD you aren’t in a position of authority 💀

1

Anonymous OP 2d

Read much?

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

Some dumbass in this thread put it this way:

-1

Anonymous #4 2d

And where do I say that citizens can ignore the law and claim ignorance? The keyword is BURDEN, emphasis on the word BURDEN LMFAO. Plus I’ve already clarified what I meant a dozen times so irregardless how I never made the claim you’re claiming I did. I mean what I say when I say it, and this little nit picking game of moot points is just childish arguing now

0

Anonymous OP 2d

You read like dogshit, kid.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

The burden is equivalent. The suggestion of one party bearing the burden requires that another party doesn’t. You should learn what words mean before you try to use them in a sentence.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

“irregardless” 😂

4

Anonymous #4 2d

No, you’re conflating me emphasizing that the officers had more responsibility with me saying citizens have none. I never said anything about citizens did I, that’s why this is your best quote

5

Anonymous #4 2d

Authority has an inherent responsibility ONTOP of a citizens duty. What an odd hill to chose to die on

4

Anonymous #4 2d

Oh my I fat fingered a period in there and now Mr “the cops can kill people when they fuck up a stop” is gonna try to use grammar to wave away any claims because nothing else stuck to the wall when you threw it

1

Anonymous OP 2d

The officers don’t have more responsibility.

-1

Anonymous OP 2d

I haven’t said a word about the consequences. I don’t give a fuck about how it went down. Fuck both of them. Renee Good was an idiot. So was the dipshit pig. I only take issue with you saying that police carry the burden of maintaining awareness of legality when that is simply not true.

-1

Anonymous #4 2d

It simply is dude I’m not sure what’s so hard to get. Authority has a higher responsibility than those they’re authoritative over. Same way your boss has more responsibilities than you, or the president has more than one of his cabinet members. You’re just being purposely obtuse to troll at this point because this is certainly a hill to actively still be dying on

1

Anonymous OP 2d

No.

-1

Anonymous #4 2d

It’s kinda their job, so yes? like obviously a cop isn’t going to know every law or how it all works, but the laws *describing how they should do their job* certainly are 100% their responsibility to know. They were explicitly trained in how to deal with a dangerously moving vehicle. If somehow they were not, that is an incredible failure of the entire training process. I think the trained officers have a pretty clear obligation to follow that training.

0

Anonymous #10 2d

How can so many dumbass kids on this app be so bad at reading? It is every citizen’s responsibility to know and live within the laws of their jurisdiction. Period. It is bizarre how triggering this is for you dumb fucks.

-2

Anonymous #4 2d

We aren’t saying you’re wrong with that bro 😭 we’re just pointing out that authority has more responsibilities than those they’re RESPONSIBLE for 🤦‍♂️ that and this is STILL not addressing the actual reason for her death, which was their negligence towards mandated protocol

4

Anonymous OP 1d

Same responsibility to know the law.

0

Anonymous #4 1d

Sorry but you stubbornly insisting on this doesn’t change that it’s true. Yes she made mistakes and should have faced the consequences, and she would have had those officers did their job correctly. You insisting that it’s just ok that they can make mistakes while citizens can’t is just perpetuating the malice between citizens and law enforcement. They should be expected to follow the law better than the average person, not have more protections for when they break it. That’s just corruption

0

Anonymous OP 1d

Show where I said any of that. I bet your writing assignments are fucking terrible. It is a legal fact that all citizens have a duty to be aware of the laws in their jurisdiction. If that bothers you, take it up with your state and federal legal system.

0

Anonymous #4 1d

And I’ve agreed with you what like 5 times now 😭😭😭😭 throw a tantrum somewhere else everyone knows you’re just deleting the thread the moment you get tired trolling 🥱

1

Anonymous OP 1d

It’s literally the only thing I’ve ever talked about. You’re the dumbass who can’t understand that.

0