What constitutes "Vehicular Assault" as a criminal ct?

... Game Over!.

... Crikey! ... Me Political "Insiders" surely do it again!

Did Minnesota Guv Tim Walz ACTUALLY sign THIS into LAW
back in 2020? ... Law SS-609.066 - ?? ... If so, ANY and ALL
politicians who called the ICE Shooter "A MURDERER" may be
soon sued for DEFAMATION... $$$$$$$

As the Law I mention gives police personnel legal protection
to use lethal force in the situation with a vehicle.

... So that's THAT!

#### Salty

I've been considering your points, and looking at the video again, because it's nice to let ideas in, at least I enjoy it. I know some people would rather not.

Handheld vs body is a huge difference when it comes to those frames when he might have been hit. I already explained that. It's HUGE. That should be obvious.

Haven't asked you to do any research (Turns out I asked you where to find something that doesn't exist. Required no research at all.). Just want to be looking at the same evidence. Sheessh.

After the last time I see the wheels turned left, as Ross comes around to the front of the vehicle to position himself to shoot, Good backs up. She turns the wheels to the right before she starts forward.

I'm sure there are some 2-second situations. The only reason to call this one of those is to justify Jonathan Ross killing Renee Good. I've explained that, too. Notice you haven't been reading what I write. Np, Honey. I get it. I'm not looking forward to when I have nothing to learn. Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Dude, give it a rest. People who are truly seeking some kind of understanding don't lead with an insult.

... Game Over!.

... Crikey! ... Me Political "Insiders" surely do it again!

Did Minnesota Guv Tim Walz ACTUALLY sign THIS into LAW
back in 2020? ... Law SS-609.066 - ?? ... If so, ANY and ALL
politicians who called the ICE Shooter "A MURDERER" may be
soon sued for DEFAMATION... $$$$$$$

As the Law I mention gives police personnel legal protection
to use lethal force in the situation with a vehicle.

... So that's THAT!

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

And that's every MINNESOTA politician, if I wasn't clear.

Go take a gecko at the Law there and you'll surely see
what I mean. ... As Tim Walz and Minnesota government
leaders should be AWARE of their-own state Laws.

#### Salty

... Game Over!.

... Crikey! ... Me Political "Insiders" surely do it again!

Did Minnesota Guv Tim Walz ACTUALLY sign THIS into LAW
back in 2020? ... Law SS-609.066 - ?? ... If so, ANY and ALL
politicians who called the ICE Shooter "A MURDERER" may be
soon sued for DEFAMATION... $$$$$$$

As the Law I mention gives police personnel legal protection
to use lethal force in the situation with a vehicle.

... So that's THAT!

#### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again

Are you saying Kristi Noem was incorrect?

In January 2026, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem stated that the state of Minnesota has "no jurisdiction" in the investigation into the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent.

... No. ... What I'm sayin' is that under Minnesota's rules and Laws
- it was a "good and justifiable shoot" from the Ice Agent's
own perspective.

#### Salty

an incorrect assumption....
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

It's too funny that you seem to have upped your game for sources to....the NY Post. I'm not necessarily questioning their accuracy here. But still...come on, man. I lived in NYC for much of my early adult life. Pre-internet, they are the literal CREATORS of "Click Bait" and shit-stirring in the U.S. It doesn't make your point any better than using The Town Hall....

Call her what you want. You fail to explain how this shooting was justified. It's obscene that she was shot for this. Reasonable people who don't support MAGA blindly believe that, anyway....

.

... Game Over!.

... Crikey! ... Me Political "Insiders" surely do it again!

Did Minnesota Guv Tim Walz ACTUALLY sign THIS into LAW
back in 2020? ... Law SS-609.066 - ?? ... If so, ANY and ALL
politicians who called the ICE Shooter "A MURDERER" may be
soon sued for DEFAMATION... $$$$$$$

As the Law I mention gives police personnel legal protection
to use lethal force in the situation with a vehicle.

... So that's THAT!
Originally Posted by Salty Again

You should make better use of your "insiders." This is neither impressive nor a smoking gun.

The only thing that they "found" is routine, boiler-plate legislation that differs little from that of most other states...and is fully a matter of public record, of course, since it IS published legislation.

And despite your intentional misrepresentation of it, this legislation changes NOTHING in this case. In fact, if my intent to misrepresent these things was as aggressive as yours, I would say that THIS passage means "GAME OVER!" for the shooter:

Subd. 1a.Legislative intent. The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:
(1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law....

. ... As Tim Walz and Minnesota government
leaders should be AWARE of their-own state Laws. Originally Posted by Salty Again

I'm sure that they are. Theirs are virtually the same as everyone else's, with the possible exception that they specifically mention "motor vehicle." But it changes nothing.

... No. ... What I'm sayin' is that under Minnesota's rules and Laws
- it was a "good and justifiable shoot" from the Ice Agent's
own perspective. Originally Posted by Salty Again

That is only your opinion, and it is not supported by this Bill whatsoever.

.

Dude, give it a rest. People who are truly seeking some kind of understanding don't lead with an insult. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Right! They couch their transparent agendas by mimicking objective opinions, cloud them with facts, and then bury them further into their posts.... then they insult.

(technically, that could be interpreted as leading with one, but...it could just be an expansion on your point...objectively....AND...did you maybe just violate your own rule?!...we kinda got some twisty logic here...)

I'm interested, though. Do you...or anyone else... on the... let's call it... the "more Conservative side" of this... have a moral problem with what went down here? A woman died. You might not have liked her actions or beliefs. They might have even been illegal. But was it really justified? Really justified? How would you feel if you cared about her? Or her family?

Do you think that maybe this Agent could...or should!...have acted differently and ended up not feeling like his best option was to use deadly force?

.

Right! They couch their transparent agendas by mimicking objective opinions, cloud them with facts, and then bury them further into their posts.... then they insult.

(technically, that could be interpreted as leading with one, but...it could just be an expansion on your point...objectively....AND...did you maybe just violate your own rule?!...we kinda got some twisty logic here...)

I'm interested, though. Do you...or anyone else... on the... let's call it... the "more Conservative side" of this... have a moral problem with what went down here? A woman died. You might not have liked her actions or beliefs. They might have even been illegal. But was it really justified? Really justified? How would you feel if you cared about her? Or her family?

Do you think that maybe this Agent could...or should!...have acted differently and ended up not feeling like his best option was to use deadly force?

. Originally Posted by Mort Watt

Firstly. I made no claim to be here on some quest for understanding. Secondly, I insulted no one here.
Bye.

Well... I claimed neither...objectively...

And I do have real curiosity about your personal moral views on this. You aren't required to give them, of course. But I thought you might be interested.

The other thread is better to discuss the moral question of this. I will pose the question there.

.

Well... I claimed neither...objectively...

And I do have real curiosity about your personal moral views on this. You aren't required to give them, of course. But I thought you might be interested.

The other thread is better to discuss the moral question of this. I will pose the question there.

. Originally Posted by Mort Watt

No, you implied it.

Be gone.

Now...THAT doesn't sound objective...or even on topic.

Well, since you're still paying attention, maybe head on over to the other thread about the shooting and let us know your thoughts about the moral issue.

Seriously. That point deserves better discussion than this.

We've beaten the legal aspect of "Vehicular Assault" to death. Ain't none of us lawyers and this needs to be decided by the legal system...if we can still depend on it. So let's go there and discuss the ethics of this.

.

Dude, give it a rest. People who are truly seeking some kind of understanding don't lead with an insult. Originally Posted by Ducbutter

Okay, you can't get over it.
Your argument (both in its claims and unwillingness to examine contradictory evidence) ultimately, as in your initial post, is so clearly pretextual as to be offensive--nothing but an attempt to exonerate a killer and blame a victim.
Maybe that motivation is what's implied in another response: you're not "here on some quest for understanding."

I see, too, that only you can be insulted. Funny one that.

You should make better use of your "insiders." This is neither impressive nor a smoking gun.

The only thing that they "found" is routine, boiler-plate legislation that differs little from that of most other states...and is fully a matter of public record, of course, since it IS published legislation.

And despite your intentional misrepresentation of it, this legislation changes NOTHING in this case. In fact, if my intent to misrepresent these things was as aggressive as yours, I would say that THIS passage means "GAME OVER!" for the shooter:

Subd. 1a.Legislative intent. The legislature hereby finds and declares the following:
(1) that the authority to use deadly force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a critical responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law....



I'm sure that they are. Theirs are virtually the same as everyone else's, with the possible exception that they specifically mention "motor vehicle." But it changes nothing.



That is only your opinion, and it is not supported by this Bill whatsoever.

. Originally Posted by Mort Watt

... Surely looks like it's supported to me.
As I haven't seen the ICE Agent charged with murder.

#### Salty

Okay, you can't get over it.
Your argument (both in its claims and unwillingness to examine contradictory evidence) ultimately, as in your initial post, is so clearly pretextual as to be offensive--nothing but an attempt to exonerate a killer and blame a victim.
Maybe that motivation is what's implied in another response: you're not "here on some quest for understanding."

I see, too, that only you can be insulted. Funny one that. Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

I'm not sure if it's a lack of reading comprehension or if you are just trying to twist my words but what I actually said was " I made no claim to be here on some quest for understanding." Not quite the same, is it? If I am engaged in a search for understanding this ain't the place I'd be seeking it.