[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.