HN Explorer

11 comments

[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 29.6 ms ] thread
shepherdjerred
On Wednesday in Minneapolis, a federal agent fatally shot a motorist, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good. Trump administration officials said these were “defensive shots” fired because the officer was being run over. But our analysis of bystander footage, filmed from different angles, appears to show the agent was not in the path of the victim’s SUV when he fired three shots at close range. Here’s how events unfolded. Moments before the shooting, the victim’s maroon SUV is stopped in the middle of the street. Multiple unmarked federal vehicles are idling nearby. Secretary Noem alleged the motorist “was blocking the officers in.” Bystanders are blowing whistles and yelling at federal agents. Then, federal vehicles start moving toward the maroon SUV with sirens and lights blaring. A federal agent films the scene on his phone. The driver rolls forward slightly, turning left, then stops and waves for others to go ahead. Two agents exit this silver pickup and walk toward the vehicle. Moments later, shots are fired. Let’s look at the scene again more closely. This is the agent who shoots the driver. He walks around the car filming and disappears from view. Other agents pull up and order the driver to exit her vehicle. One of them grabs at the door handle and reaches inside. The SUV reverses, then turns right, apparently attempting to leave. At the same time, the agent filming crosses toward the left of the vehicle and grabs his gun. He opens fire on the motorist and continues shooting as she drives past. The moment the agent fires, he is standing here to the left of the SUV and the wheels are pointing to the right away from the agent. This appears to conflict with allegations that the SUV was ramming or about to ram the officer. President Trump and others said the federal agent was hit by the SUV, often pointing to another video filmed from a different angle. And it’s true that at this moment, in this grainy, low-resolution footage, it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV. But when we synchronize it with the first clip, we can see the agent is not being run over. In fact, his feet are positioned away from the SUV. The SUV crashes into a white car parked down the road. A bystander runs toward the collision. The federal agents on scene do not appear to rush to provide emergency medical care. Eventually, the agent who shot the motorist approaches the vehicle. Seconds later, he turns back around and tells his colleagues to call 911. Agents blocked several bystanders who attempt to provide medical care, including one who identifies himself as a physician. At the same time, several agents, including the agent who opened fire, get in their vehicles and drive off, apparently altering the active crime scene.
delichon
Here's the legal rubric, the "Five Elements of Self-Defense":

  1. avoidance: duty to retreat: You must attempt to retreat or avoid the confrontation if it is safe and possible to do so without increasing danger.
  2. innocence (non-aggressor): You must not be the initial aggressor or have provoked the incident.
  3. imminence: The threat must be immediate and underway (or about to begin imminently)
  4. proportionality: The force used must match the threat level without excess.
  5. reasonableness: Your belief in the necessity of deadly force must be reasonable based on the facts known to you at the time.
To me (3) seems least controversial and (1) most controversial.
giardini
We're hearing two extreme interpretations of what happened from at least two political sides. Only one video was initially shown.

But there were multiple persons filming the incident, the police vehicles nearby likely had cameras and likely some officers had body cameras as well. And there may be surveillance video cameras on buildings too.

In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.

[deleted]
(comment deleted)
twixfel
Sometimes extreme things happen. I mean this:

>In the end, the investigation will likely show that neither of the two extreme interpretations currently polarizing public opinion is correct.

is just a mad, mad take. It is literal prejudice, either way. Just an opinion based on basically nothing.

UncleMeat
We now have the footage from the killer's camera. In my the interpretation that this was a murder was not extreme enough.
ZeroGravitas
I'm reminded of a Twitter joke:

> I have a mental illness that makes me think that people will change their minds if presented with correct arguments, appropriate facts and data.