ICE Finally Fires Back!

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, West said:

Possibly. I still stand by my assertion they are using ANYTHING to distract from the massive fraud just uncovered. Its sad she lost their life but being a woke activist who targets law enforcement is playing with fire

Oh i'm SURE they consider this a blessing from heaven and are milking it for every single drop they can, i'm completely with you there. 

58 minutes ago, robosmith said:

She didn't "drive at ICE officers." Look at the WHEELS in the video and you'll see she was TURNING RIGHT to get away from Ross.

Ross didn't even move cause he was busy AIMING AT HER. That is MURDER, esp because he kept firing after she had passed him to the right.

Are you really that DUMB?

She hit him. 

Even you are not stupid enough to try to claim that she wasn't driving right for him if she hit him. FFS

[gatomontes99]

15 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Unfortunately, leftist leaders are doubling down with hate, like the mayor there who told ICE agents to "Get the f out of his city", and with more incitement to rebel against authority, like Tampon Timmy's open call for resistance to ICE activity in Portland and other cities. 

To be quite honest, the dictionary definition of sedition is to implore citizens to resist lawful authority.

The sick part of this is those leftist leaders know that their words will get someone else killed at some point and they just don't care. Hell, they welcome it. 

[gatomontes99]

That didn't take long:

Quote

CBP officer shoots 2 alleged gang members in Portland, Ore.

"When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents," she explained.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/cbp-officer-shoots-2-alleged-021437620.html

 

[Barquentine]

21 hours ago, CdnFox said:

And no it's absolutely common practice and absolutely the correct thing to do to draw your firearm and point it out of vehicle when the person involved is not listening to instructions and his potentially hostile.

AI Overview
Police protocol prohibits officers from standing in the path of an occupied vehicle or shooting at a moving vehicle unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm that cannot be otherwise avoided. Most police agencies have policies specifically stating that the moving vehicle itself does not automatically justify the use of deadly force. 

https://www.wdbj7.com/2026/01/08/what-know-about-rules-officers-firing-moving-vehicle/
When can officers fire at a moving vehicle?
But most police departments and federal guidance bar shooting at a moving vehicle unless the driver poses an imminent threat of deadly force beyond the car itself.

Why are shootings at vehicles restricted?
Experts say firing at a moving car is one of the riskiest forms of lethal force, increasing the chance of stray gunfire or a loss of vehicle control that can endanger bystanders.

Are officers expected to move out of the way?
Yes. Justice Department policy says deadly force is allowed only when no reasonable alternative exists, including stepping out of the vehicle’s path.

Can officers use deadly force just to stop or arrest someone?
No. Policies generally state officers cannot use deadly force solely to arrest someone or to disable a fleeing vehicle if the person does not pose an immediate threat.

https://www.foxcarolina.com/2026/01/08/south-carolina-police-training-limits-when-officers-should-shoot-cars/

New training focuses on positioning and avoidance
Officers are now trained to position themselves so they can’t be hit by cars, according to the new protocols.

University of South Carolina Assistant Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice Ian Adams said not shooting at a vehicle is the standard nationwide. Officers should use distance and barriers to protect themselves instead, Adams said.

The main reason, Adams said, bullets don’t stop cars.

https://academic.oup.com/policing/article/doi/10.1093/police/paaf004/8058528
Part of the NYPD’s Operating Procedure 237, developed in 1971, included a prohibition against shooting at moving vehicles unless the occupant(s) was using deadly force by means other than the vehicle itself.

In the decades since, multiple police departments followed suit by enacting their own policy restrictions

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-federal-guidelines-say-about-agents-using-deadly-force
There are all sorts of caveats and qualifications, but, as a general rule, police officers and law enforcement do not shoot into moving cars, do not put themselves in front of cars, because those are things that are easily de-escalated.
 

22 hours ago, User said:

turn towards his direction.

You need to get your eyes checked out.

[gatomontes99]

35 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

Police protocol prohibits officers from standing in the path of an occupied vehicle or shooting at a moving vehicle unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm that cannot be otherwise avoided.

Just stop right there. The officer was standing to the right of the vehicle until she backed up and turned the car at him. 

[User]

39 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

That didn't take long

What do we expect? The left is now supporting people doing this. 

39 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

You need to get your eyes checked out.

No, I don’t. It’s on video from multiple angles. 

[gatomontes99]

The Democrat rhetoric is going to lead to more violence.

Now, this loŝer can't hold a gun and he is shooting from 9 feet (see the sign painted above him). Most indoor gun ranges won't allow a long gun. So I don't know what this guy thinks he is doing, but he clearly is not competent. That said, he is dangerously radical and should be arrested. So should the Mayor and Governor of Minnesota for encouraging this behavior. 

 

[User]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Just stop right there. The officer was standing to the right of the vehicle until she backed up and turned the car at him. 

I need to confirm this more, but I read last night the officer was also distracted because he had one of the people there harassing him following closely with a camera and heckling him too, as he was approaching the vehicle. 
 

This whole thing was a set up by leftists agitators that went wrong because she tried to flee. 

[gatomontes99]

11 minutes ago, User said:

I need to confirm this more, but I read last night the officer was also distracted because he had one of the people there harassing him following closely with a camera and heckling him too, as he was approaching the vehicle. 
 

This whole thing was a set up by leftists agitators that went wrong because she tried to flee. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/multiple-angles-show-minnesota-ice-shooting/vi-AA1TMF4g

That video clip confirms that. It also shows him walking up to the passenger's side and then she started backing up and he tries to move to the driver's side when the car points at him. She began accelerating at him and that is when he shot. 

He was also videoing the woman that was harassing him. Maybe they do that to identify these agitators later? 

[The Tone]

New here, so catch me up. Have the libtards finally admitted that the woman did, in fact, slam her car into the officer? Are they conceding she was a trained agitator paid to harass ICE agents while they perform the vital, popular work of rounding up illegal aliens terrorizing neighborhoods? At least admit she tailed them all day, hell-bent on sabotaging their lawful operations. And surely they see it's obvious the guy stood right in front of her car, given the bullet hole in the windshield and where she got hit. I'll assume yes on all counts, because denying those blatant facts makes you delusional.

Now, who's at fault? As a sane person, it's crystal clear: the relentless demonization of ICE by left-wing 'leaders' and the scum funding groups that train and pay obstructors, including 'legal observers'. They've brainwashed hundreds of thousands of impressionable, low-IQ left-wing drones into foot soldiers for an internal assault on America's representative republic. This likely includes bribing sleazy politicians for policies like sanctuary cities, a flagrant federal law violation that racks up huge costs in money and human misery by making these cities a magnet for the worst illegal alien criminals and when they get arrested, they're released back on the streets to terrorize citizens more.

Most relevant here? Cops were almost certainly ordered to stand down, ignore crowd control, and refused to arrest law-breaking 'protesters'. They don't respond to help calls or crimes against ICE officers and property. Unfortunate reality? If they'd just honored their oath and done their job, that woman would be alive today. What say you?

[ironstone]

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

Masked men with guns storming a car tend to make women freak out.

Strange. I don't recall you ever once complaining about masked left-wing protesters and rioters.

[gatomontes99]

9 hours ago, robosmith said:

Masked men with guns storming a car tend to make women freak out.

Esp when they are often guilty of detaining citizens for NO REASON.

If they always did what they're supposed to do, she would still be alive.

Instead they break ALL THE RULES because they believe they are above the law like Trump. 🤮

A truly disingenuous post and he believes every word of it. I find that fascinating. 

[gatomontes99]

The hypocrisy:

Quote

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called the incident "totally predictable, totally avoidable."

https://www.fox9.com/news/gov-walz-ice-shooting-folks-remain-calm-jan-2026

And then:

Quote

Gov. Walz doubts ICE shooting investigation will reach "fair outcome" unless FBI allows state to participate

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/gov-tim-walz-fbi-investigation-bca-evidence-minnesota-ice-shooting/

Dude literally condemned the man that shot in self defense, lied about the circumstances and now claims he is the only one that can bring a fair outcome. What a joke. 

[WestCanMan]

15 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

AT BEST the first shot is arguably defensible, especially by American standards

It would be hard to make the case that it wasn't. 

The vehicle was accelerating towards him from close range at that point, and it's easy for him to make the case that he thought that it was an attack, which is all that matters. From his POV that was a definite and likely possibility.

Quote

But the second and third shots which are from the side and rear of the car when he is clearly not in the car’s path are totally unjustified.   

Yet still fired so close after the first one that it is a continuation of that same shooting. And if you look closely at the video, his body just finished bouncing off of the window/knocking the mirror off of her car within 2/100ths of a second of him firing those shots. The incident wasn't over from his POV at that exact moment in time. 

 

 

The Dem politicians, community leaders and high-profile followers have all been prodding civilians to interfere with and offer resistance to ICE activity (sedition), just like she was doing, and those agitators/activists aren't professionally trained in "How to interfere just enough to not killed when you finally do something stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of danger".

Honestly, just consider the quality of life choices that woman made prior to that day... Somehow she managed to lose custody of both of her children from her first marriage. How does a woman even do that? 80% of the time that's from going to jail, and 19.9% of the time it's from being a junkie with no fixed address. What's the other .1%? I don't even know. Can't guess. She was just a nutcase whose path towards that bullet started months/years earlier.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Strange. I don't recall you ever once complaining about masked left-wing protesters and rioters.

It's esp strange that you  don't know the difference between UNARMED protesters and cops carrying semi-automatic rifles and Glocks.

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

It would be hard to make the case that it wasn't. 

The vehicle was accelerating towards him from close range at that point, and it's easy for him to make the case that he thought that it was an attack, which is all that matters. From his POV that was a definite and likely possibility.

Yet still fired so close after the first one that it is a continuation of that same shooting. And if you look closely at the video, his body just finished bouncing off of the window/knocking the mirror off of her car within 2/100ths of a second of him firing those shots. The incident wasn't over from his POV at that exact moment in time. 

 

 

The Dem politicians, community leaders and high-profile followers have all been prodding civilians to interfere with and offer resistance to ICE activity (sedition), just like she was doing, and those agitators/activists aren't professionally trained in "How to interfere just enough to not killed when you finally do something stupid enough to put yourself in that kind of danger".

Honestly, just consider the quality of life choices that woman made prior to that day... Somehow she managed to lose custody of both of her children from her first marriage. How does a woman even do that? 80% of the time that's from going to jail, and 19.9% of the time it's from being a junkie with no fixed address. What's the other .1%? I don't even know. Can't guess. She was just a nutcase whose path towards that bullet started months/years earlier.

All he had to do is look at the wheels to see she was sharply turning the vehicle to the RIGHT. Duh

[User]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

All he had to do is look at the wheels to see she was sharply turning the vehicle to the RIGHT. Duh

He was IN FRONT of the vehicle, how does he know which way the wheels are pointed and how is he supposed to do that in under a second as a vehicle is accelerating towards him?

 

[ironstone]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

All he had to do is look at the wheels to see she was sharply turning the vehicle to the RIGHT. Duh

Yeah right, stoop down for a second and check which way the wheels are pointing while there's a driver refusing to co-operate.

Last June, during a routine traffic stop in Bloomington, Minnesota, the same officer was dragged roughly 100 yards by a driver after his arm got stuck in the vehicle, according to The New York Post. Who was the driver? An illegal migrant.

[Goddess]

 

 

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Yeah right, stoop down for a second and check which way the wheels are pointing while there's a driver refusing to co-operate.

Last June, during a routine traffic stop in Bloomington, Minnesota, the same officer was dragged roughly 100 yards by a driver after his arm got stuck in the vehicle, according to The New York Post. Who was the driver? An illegal migrant.

So he acted before there was danger this time because he was bad at his job last time.  Maybe let the moms go and focus on the more dangerous illegals?  Be more sneaky.  Marching on people like it’s Kent State University isn’t going to nab you Nester the Molester.  

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

 

The wife was right there and yelled at her to "Drive!  Drive!"

Yeesh. 😢

[robosmith]

9 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Yeah right, stoop down for a second and check which way the wheels are pointing while there's a driver refusing to co-operate.

Last June, during a routine traffic stop in Bloomington, Minnesota, the same officer was dragged roughly 100 yards by a driver after his arm got stuck in the vehicle, according to The New York Post. Who was the driver? An illegal migrant.

He was really stupid to put his arm in the window of a vehicle and didn't learn from HIS MISSTAKE.

Ross seems esp prone to taking huge risks by VIOLATING POLICY.

He was not supposed to put himself in harm's way by standing in front of Good's vehicle 

Nor continue firing AFTER the threat had PASSED HIM.

Sorry but you're defending an lDIOT who suffered NO INJURY.

You can see that by noting he was NOT EVEN LIMPING after the incident.

[Shady]

Totally justified.

 

[ironstone]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

So he acted before there was danger this time because he was bad at his job last time.  Maybe let the moms go and focus on the more dangerous illegals?  Be more sneaky.  Marching on people like it’s Kent State University isn’t going to nab you Nester the Molester.  

Firstly, she put her foot on the accelerator when he was in front of the vehicle and he reacted justifiably.

"Focus on the more dangerous illegals???"  The man they were trying to apprehend was one Roberto Munoz.

Roberto Munoz-Guatemala: Background and Criminal Record
Roberto Carlos Munoz-Guatemala, the fugitive ICE was attempting to apprehend during the incident involving Renee Good, is a 40-year-old undocumented immigrant with a serious criminal history.

Criminal History
Sex Offense: Munoz-Guatemala was convicted in December 2022 for repeated sexual abuse of a minor, specifically for offenses involving his 16-year-old stepdaughter. This conviction was categorized under felony fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Prior Charges: Before the incidents leading to his most recent arrest, he was known to law enforcement for several offenses.

If you don't think this individual fits into the category of 'more dangerous illegals'  then your moral compass is clearly out of whack to put it as mildly as I can.

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, ironstone said:

The man they were trying to apprehend was one Roberto Munoz.

Marching through the streets pointing guns at citizens is not how you capture anyone.  They were there to make the president’s point.  Brownshirts.  

[ironstone]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Marching through the streets pointing guns at citizens is not how you capture anyone.  They were there to make the president’s point.  Brownshirts.  

You statement indicated you did not think Roberto Munoz should be considered 'a dangerous illegal' despite what he was convicted of. 

So if Munoz doesn't meet your threshold, just where do you draw the line?

Comparing ICE to Brownshirts is just so inappropriate given what the Nazis did.