[Bigred512]

Originally Posted by Vincentsdream ↗

First shot fired with his legs and body are to the left of the vehicle. He was no longer in danger when he shot and killed her. If its trauma related he shouldn't be an officer anymore.

Of course he shouldn't have been there but it's nearly impossible to fire cops whether they're state, local, or federal. Government unions are also notorious for protecting incompetence unless you're bottom of the barrel entry level. I worked for the government for years and misconduct investigations would take months.

[Tornadolen]

Originally Posted by Faust ↗

Vedderman can you add this to the OP?

Seems pretty important

what a fucking stupid cunt, how could she do that with a dog in the car, fuck, now im annoyed, so fucking stupid, poor dog

so fucking retarded

[rlxr]

Who exactly are we taking the country back from?

[Tornadolen]

if you want to pretend to be a hero or act like you're saving your country, that's fine. But get yourself killed alone, and don't you fucking bring your dog into that. After the crash, that poor animal is either dead or badly injured.

[kellyhound]

Originally Posted by uziel ↗

Thanks, that makes more sense. I probably still would have dropped the phone to fire. Wild he made that shot.

If i was dragged by a car and all stiched up a little over 6 months ago and back on the job i certainly wouldn't pose myself in front of a car in a situation like this.

Maybe he thought she wasn't posing a threat or (evil thinking) maybe he hoped it would escalate so he could take some "revenge" from his previous encounter with a fleeing car.
Can't look into his mind so don't know.

Investigators are looking into whether the June 2025 incident where he was dragged by a car caused a "heightened fear" or PTSD-like response that influenced his decision to use deadly force when Renee Good's vehicle began to move.

While some experts argue this explains a "split-second decision," others argue it suggests he may have been unfit for active field duty so soon after a violent injury.

Going to be an interesting court/law battle

1. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal officers are generally immune from state prosecution for acts committed while doing their jobs. However, Minnesota prosecutors (led by Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty) are citing a standard refined in recent jurisprudence (including the 2025 case Martin v. United States):

The Argument: Immunity only applies if the officer’s actions were "necessary and proper" to fulfill their federal duties.

The State's Position: Minnesota argues that if Officer Ross used excessive force (shooting a person who was turning away or fleeing), his actions were neither "necessary" nor "proper." Therefore, he was acting outside the scope of his federal authority and can be charged under Minnesota state law.

2. Fourth Amendment Violations as a "Gateway"
Legal experts, including those from the University of Wisconsin Law School advising on the case, suggest that if an officer violates the Fourth Amendment (which protects against unreasonable seizures/use of force), they effectively lose their federal cover.

The Strategy: If the state can prove the shooting was an "unreasonable seizure," the federal government can no longer claim the act was "authorized by federal law." This would allow the state to proceed with charges like Second-Degree Murder or Manslaughter.

3. Minnesota State Statutes vs. Federal Removal
Hennepin County is specifically looking at Minnesota Statute § 609.19 (Murder in the Second Degree).

The "Removal" Conflict: Under 28 U.S.C. § 1442, a federal officer has the right to "remove" a state case to a federal court.

The State's Counter: Even if the case is moved to federal court, the trial would still be based on Minnesota state laws. Critically, if convicted of a state crime in a federal court, the President cannot pardon the officer, as the pardon power only applies to federal offenses.

4. The Data Practices Act Challenge
Minnesota is also using its Government Data Practices Act to push for transparency.

Because the shooting happened on a public street in Minneapolis, state officials argue that certain evidence (like autopsy reports or local traffic camera footage) falls under state jurisdiction.

They are using this to bypass the FBI’s "sole control" of the evidence, though the FBI currently holds the physical SUV and the shell casings.

5. Jurisdictional "Self-Help"
Because the FBI is currently refusing to share evidence with the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), Attorney General Keith Ellison and Mary Moriarty have taken the unusual step of crowdsourcing the investigation:

They have set up a public portal asking witnesses to submit private videos and photos directly to the state.

This is a move to build a "parallel file" so the state can bring charges even if the federal government refuses to cooperate or release its internal findings.

[kellyhound]

Originally Posted by Tornadolen ↗

After the crash, that poor animal is either dead or badly injured.

Good's wife/partner was seen on the ground near the scene, covered in blood, with the dog beside her. Social media posts and discussions confirm the dog survived unharmed and was with the surviving partner/family afterward.

[19Delta40]

How can you be a former veteran.. So is she active duty.. again? I didn't know they were allowing the whole non binary rainbow thing back in the military right now.

[casualtyvampire]

Good shot! See what I did there?

[crice63]

Originally Posted by jsundqui ↗

It's not legal use of deadly force because the officer is expected to:

A) Keep a safe distance from the car which might accelerate for any reason at any time.

B) Yield or step aside if the car comes towards you.

The officer didn't do A or B. He was also guilty of escalating the situation unnecessarily.

A 1,000 times you are correct. You have some common sense, good work my man,

[WhiskeyOutpost]

Originally Posted by Nofreakinwaydude ↗

Why are you even rationally excusing murder? Humans have emotions, someone died! Someone that shouldnt have. The woman was aggressively approached by known assailants, she was trying to escape. The man she supposedly ran over, the one that shot her, stepped in front of her car from the right while she was engaging and fleeing a terrorist on her left. She couldnt have known he was there because a second before he wasnt.

Grow some empathy for christs sake.

I'll take comments that aged like milk in a Texan summer for 800, Alex