[conartist6]

You do realize that's a politically motivated account of actions that has never been subjected to any kind of cross-examination.

I want a trial to know if this was a murder or a law enforcement action or self-defense. I should not be expected to decide PERSONALLY, I'm supposed to have a justice system that does that.

[conartist6]

What I heard is that she attempted to drive a way in a direction that would have made no physical contact with the officer, but the vehicle started to slip sideways on ice and travel in the direction of the officer.

If this is all true, the officer might likely be acquitted at trial, as the only necessary justification for such force is that the officer have any reason to fear for their life.

But THERE SHOULD BE A TRIAL. What I have heard from those who have studied the available forensic evidence is that Renee Good never intended to do anything but drive away, which may or may not have been legal but is not (necessarily) attempted murder, nor alone cause for an instant death penalty.

There should be a trial if for no other reason than to clear the name of Renee Good, who you are accusing of a heinous crime

[felixgallo]

You don't have to 'hear' anything. If you watch the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNbHlmZVmAw for example (0:55), you see that the tires are turned completely away from the murderer, who fires shots directly into her even though he is obviously not in danger of being seriously harmed.

[LightHugger]

Trials aren't held for obvious outcomes, the moment she hit the cop with her car there's no reason for that. I understand some people think that violently attacking someone "with power" like a cop can be justified but there is no chance of convicting a cop of anything in this situation. Out here in the real world there are constant abuses by police of non-violent people and even they aren't put on trial for it. Start there.

Frankly there are a lot of cops who need the death penalty for horrific abuse of their positions to rape and kill and yet just get juggled between departments instead, it's insane. And you're here whining about the obvious justified self defense for political reasons, it's stupid.

The fact is hitting the cop with her car is on video and she knew she was under arrest after spending the day blocking the road. You do not get to rewrite reality with your politically motivated desire for a trial.

> Jonathan Ross is the only person in that interaction that violently attacked someone resulting in death.

Yeah, because he killed her in justified self defense with pretty good aim in a snap situation might i add.

[thecrash]

It's scary that you bring up the question of whether Rene Good was under arrest or not at the time she was killed. As if it were legal or justified to execute people for failing to cooperate with their own arrest. It's scary because you're not the only person who believes this - many in ICE and other police agencies hold this belief, and by repeating it you encourage them to kill again.

[LightHugger]

It's scary how insane this reply is considering i clearly stated the reason she got shot is hitting a cop with her car. It is not legal to execute someone for evading arrest but violent assault with a deadly weapon justifies proportional use of force. If you hit a cop with your car while evading arrest getting shot is a given.

Replying in this edit due to HN rate limit (it's like 4 posts? crazy, can't even hold a conversation)

> But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee, who again you are not giving the presumption of innocence that I am at least giving the officer

I do not believe her intent was to attack, i believe she intended to escape regardless of whether she ran over the cop. I don't think there's a meaningful difference here. My presumption of innocence for rene good extends this far already but given she was looking directly at the cop who was directly in front of her car while slamming on the gas if i was on a theoretical jury in a theoretical trial for her, i would convict her. We do not have a higher standard available.

[conartist6]

Yeah I get that. I understand that a car is really a deadly weapon, and the officer in a split second could not know for sure if the intent was to attack.

But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee

[conartist6]

again a legal defense would contest your claim that there was intent to attack

[LightHugger]

I really don't care at all what a dishonest legal offense (it would be offense not defense remember, if you want the cop prosecuted) would claim when the evidence is so clear and it's only politically motivated insane people saying otherwise. Furthermore "intent to attack" Is actually irrelevant when 1. she did "attack" the cop by hitting him with her car and 2. the cop doesn't have to guess at her intent when he is already being assaulted with a deadly weapon.

[hightrix]

> violently attacking someone

Jonathan Ross is the only person in that interaction that violently attacked someone resulting in death.