Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have." ...and to this very day most Americans haven't noticed they're being brained washed! ~ N. Hooben
Tuesday, January 27, 2026
Monday, January 26, 2026
You won't be reading it in history books, you'll be an eye witness
Their ultimate goal is power/control over the populace and destroy any notion that this is one nation under God. Which was once pushed by the Humanists * of the early 20th century that it would take several generations to take the long term approach for a successful takeover of the Republican form of government...the same mindset of both Maoist and Marxist ideology.
*1933 -- The first Humanist Manifesto is published. Co-author John Dewey, the noted philosopher and educator, calls for a synthesizing of all religions and "a socialized and cooperative economic order." Co-signer C.F. Potter said in 1930:
"Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?
If allowed to continue, we are less than one generation away from dominance by the slave masters. This means you won't be reading it in history books, you'll be an eye witness. Before they passed into eternity, several of my deceased elderly relatives have stated, "I'm glad I'm on my way out." They're gone now and I'm witnessing the end of the movie. But I have faith the editor (aka Donald Trump) will somehow culminate this into a happy ending. ~ Norman E. Hooben
Thursday, January 22, 2026
I wonder if Learndis Hamilton had a younger brother.
This story caught my attention only because I once lived in Ozark and years before that lived in Montgomery. While in Montgomery I knew of a fella in the Federal Prison located on Maxwell AFB who was doing time for running an illegal moonshine distillery in Tennessee.
What was interesting about this inmate is, that he wasn't guilty. He pleaded guilty in order to save his guilty brother. The brother was married and had several children and a wife who was dependent upon him. So in protecting his younger brother's family the oldest went to prison... I would call that the definition of brotherly love.
Somehow the stories below seemed to tie into long ago forgotten memories.
Over 80 gallons of moonshine seized in Ozark traffic stop
By Ty Storey
Published: Jan. 21, 2026
DOTHAN, Ala. (WTVY) - Police in Ozark made a big discovery earlier this month when they seized nearly seven dozen gallons of moonshine during a routine traffic stop.
On January 9, Officer Dylan Griffin pulled over 61-year-old Learndis Hamilton for a traffic violation.
While speaking with Hamilton, Officer Griffin noticed multiple containers in plain sight inside the vehicle, prompting a deeper investigation which uncovered over 81 gallons of illegally distilled moonshine.
Mr. Hamilton was traveling through Ozark from Florida, with his final destination not made clear to police, where he would have likely sold the large amount of illegal alcohol.
 |
| Ozark Police Officer Dylan Griffin uncovered over 81 gallons of illegally distilled moonshine during a traffic stop on January 9, 2026.(Ozark Criminal Investigations Bureau) |
The moonshine possessed by Hamilton is a violation of Alabama law due to the quantity.
Hamilton was arrested as a result of Officer Griffin’s findings, and the investigation was turned over to the Alabama Beverage Control Board.
As of January 21, Mr. Hamilton was not listed as being booked in the Dale County Jail, and no additional details were made available about his charges.
_____________________
MEMORIES
The Robert Mitchum movie about running illegal alcohol (moonshine) is Thunder Road (1958), a cult classic where Mitchum plays Lucas Doolin, a Korean War vet who drives bootleg liquor in his souped-up Ford, dodging federal agents and rival gangs through the Appalachian mountains, a role he also co-wrote.
- Plot: Mitchum's character transports illegal booze from Tennessee to Chicago, facing threats from the mob and government agents, all while trying to protect his younger brother, Robin (played by his real-life son, James Mitchum).
- Key Elements: The film is known for its gritty realism, high-speed car chases, and the iconic theme song, "The Ballad of Thunder Road," also sung by Mitchum.
- Legacy: It's considered a definitive film about moonshining culture and influenced later works like The Dukes of Hazzard and Smokey and the Bandit.
Wednesday, January 21, 2026
No Republic collapses in a single moment. It begins quietly and gradually
Something To Ponder
By Clint Grantham
Before the Fires: What Americans Forgot About the Road to Bleeding Kansas—and Why It Matters Now... Americans tend to remember history by its explosions. We remember the burning of towns, the shots fired, the bodies left behind. What we forget, almost every time, is what came before. No Republic collapses in a single moment, and no civil conflict begins with blood. It begins quietly, gradually, and often under the banner of moral certainty. If we want to understand our present moment, we need to look carefully at what happened on the Kansas Missouri border before May of 1856, not just what happened during 1856.
What later became known as Bleeding Kansas did not erupt overnight. The Kansas Nebraska Act of 1854 opened the territory to popular sovereignty, effectively outsourcing the question of slavery to local settlers. What followed was not immediate violence but a steady campaign of intimidation. Armed groups crossed the border to influence elections. Polling places were overrun. Ballot boxes were stuffed. Newspapers were threatened. Meetings were disrupted. Men were warned, sometimes politely and sometimes not, that certain beliefs were unwelcome. These actions were deliberate, coordinated, and designed to send a message long before they were designed to shed blood.
The most important thing to understand is that these early actions were not chaotic. They were strategic. They targeted institutions rather than individuals. Churches, presses, town meetings, and civic gatherings became pressure points because they shaped public life. The goal was not persuasion. It was compliance through fear. If enough people could be intimidated into silence, the outcome would take care of itself. This phase of the conflict rarely makes headlines in textbooks because it lacks spectacle, but it is where the damage was done.
By the time pro-slavery forces carried out the Sacking of Lawrence in May of 1856, the ground had already been prepared. Lawrence did not come out of nowhere. It followed years of harassment, threats, and lawless pressure that had trained both sides to expect conflict. The destruction of printing presses and buildings was shocking, but it was also the logical next step in a campaign that had already normalized intimidation as a political tool.
Just days later came the Pottawatomie Creek Massacre, when John Brown and his followers murdered five men in retaliation. These men were pulled from their homes at night with their families screaming. As their wives and children watched, they were savagely killed with broadswords and axes. The method was deliberate: silent, intimate, and meant to terrorize. Firearms were present but largely avoided; the brutality itself was the message.
John Brown and his followers did not strike in a single burst of rage. They moved house to house in a methodical nighttime operation, stopping at five separate farms, dragging one man from each home, and brutally killing him in front of family members. The five men were likely not even involved in the Sacking of Lawrence. Their deaths were not about guilt or evidence but about sending a message. The purpose was intimidation. The brutality was intentional. It was meant to terrorize an entire region into submission by demonstrating that identity alone was enough to mark a man for death.
History remembers this moment because it was brutal and unmistakable. But even this was not the beginning of the violence. It was the point at which the slow boil finally broke the surface. People did not wake up radicalized that week. They had been radicalized for years.
Here is where modern Americans often make a dangerous mistake. We assume that because information moves instantly today, escalation must also happen instantly. That is not how human societies work. Despite telegraphs, newspapers, and railroads, the conflict that began in Kansas in 1854 did not become a full-scale civil war until 1860. Six years passed between the opening of the territory and the first shots at Fort Sumter. The speed of communication did not change the pace of moral hardening, tribal thinking, or justification of coercion. Those things still moved at a human rate. They always do.
What matters is not how fast news travels but how quickly intimidation becomes acceptable. Once people convince themselves that disrupting institutions is justified because the cause is righteous, the descent has begun. Once moral opponents are no longer neighbors but enemies, restraint erodes. Violence does not arrive suddenly. It arrives after people have been conditioned to tolerate smaller violations. That conditioning is the real danger.
That is why Americans should be paying attention not only to dramatic events, but to the quieter ones. When organized groups target symbolic institutions to send a message. When actions are planned, publicized, and documented rather than spontaneous. When intimidation is excused because it stops short of bloodshed. These are not harmless expressions of passion. They are the early chapters of a story this country has already lived.
History shows that the most important work of preservation happens long before fires are lit. A stitch in time really does save nine. In this case, it saves lives. Communities that take small problems seriously, that refuse to normalize coercion, that defend neutral spaces like churches, courts, and civic forums, are the communities that never make the history books. They succeed quietly by preventing escalation rather than reacting to catastrophe.
The tragedy of Bleeding Kansas is not just that Americans killed one another. It is that the warning signs were visible for years and ignored because they seemed manageable, excusable, or temporary. By the time the violence became undeniable, it was already inevitable.
The lesson is neither partisan nor abstract. Republics are not lost all at once. They are lost when intimidation replaces persuasion, when institutions become targets, and when citizens tell themselves that this is different, that this time will stop short. It never does.
Before the fires come the sparks. Before the sparks come the tolerance of intimidation. If Americans want to preserve the Republic, they must learn to recognize the early heat and act while there is still time to cool it.
__________________________
In reading the biography of John Brown, one could conclude that he would kill anybody in order to abolish slavery; even if his victims were only slightly suspicious of supporting the slave industry. They called him a radical abolishonist. Too radical for the era, so when the authorities captured him, they hung him. I think the slaves at the time and the people of today who identify as black, would call him a hero.
Referring to Clint Grantham's essay about the "Road to Bleeding Kansas—and Why It Matters Now". Is it possible that we are on the road to Minneapolis?
The warning signs were visible for years during the Wilson Roosevelt, Clinton, Obama, and Biden Administrations, but ignored because they seemed manageable, excusable, or temporary.
One final thought. While I'm sure Clint will forgive me for plagiarising some of his verbiage, I did say this to him, "If a modern day John Brown were to exist today to abolish abortion, Senator Chuckie Schumer would be his hangman." ~ N.E.H.
Tuesday, January 20, 2026
I use Facebook, so do you (You're reading this right now.) Question: How can we both drop Facebook without losing the thousands of contacts we made over the past twenty years? After you view the following video you'll understand why I ask.
+
 |
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg meetsChina propaganda chief in Beijing Mark Zuckerberg greets President Xi in Chinese
Chinese President Xi Jinping exchanged greetings with Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, and other tech executives at the eighth annual US-China Internet Industry Forum at Microsoft’s Redmond campus on Wednesday. #XiJinping #XiUSAVisit
Zuckerberg, attired in suit with a red tie - which he normally doesn’t wear, shook hands with Xi at the forum. “This was the first time I’ve ever spoken with a world leader entirely in a foreign language. I consider that meaningful personal milestone,” Zuckerberg posted later on his Facebook page.
Zuckerberg has claimed multiple times that he has been learning Chinese and was earlier reported to have read and recommended the Governance of China, a collection of Xi’s speeches and interviews, as per the Seattle Times.
Before making a brief speech and talking pictures with the executives, Xi and his wife Peng Liyuan toured Microsoft’s office. During the tour, they were offered a demo of the company’s latest products, like the Holon Lens and data visualization software.
Xi said he was impressed with the “beautiful campus of Microsoft.” He also noted that 2015 marked the 20th anniversary of cooperation between Microsoft and China. |
STAND YOUR GROUND, even if you lose!
It may be too late for the people protesting on the streets of Minneapolis for they are clearly under the control of their masters...but it's not to late for the rest of us who have some remnants of self control within us. ~ N.E.H.
+
Monday, January 19, 2026
Sunday, January 18, 2026
Saturday, January 17, 2026
Democrats are Staging a Civil War
Article by Todd Chase
What is happening in Minneapolis today is not a series of unfortunate accidents. It is a calculated, treasonous conspiracy orchestrated by the Democratic Party to push the United States to the brink of civil war. The events in the Twin Cities are a direct result of a "destabilization playbook" designed to undermine federal authority and shield criminal networks.
The Democratic establishment has transitioned from mere incompetence to active sabotage, using the tragic death of "certified" agitator Renee Nicole Good to rally a mob against the very foundations of American law. By instructing citizens to "document" and harass federal agents, Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey have effectively deputized radical groups like the "ICE Watch Antifa Super Soldiers" to serve as a Democrat street militia.
The administration and its allies strongly accuse these Democrat leaders of maintaining a "data desert" in Minnesota to hide billions in welfare fraud. A massive $20 billion "fraud factory" that has siphoned taxpayer money into radical networks. They argue that the current street violence is a deliberate distraction, meant to prevent federal auditors and ICE agents from exposing the deep-seated corruption of the Walz administration.
Vice President JD Vance has been clear: this is not a policy dispute; it is an insurrection led by sitting officials who have abandoned the rule of law. By openly contesting federal sovereignty and inviting citizens to play a deadly game of "roulette" with law enforcement, the Democrats are signaling that they would rather see our cities burn than see their corrupt networks dismantled.
The threat of the Insurrection Act is now a reality because the Democrats have left the federal government no other choice. When mayors tell federal agents to "get the hell out" of their cities while billions in fraud money vanishes into thin air, they are declaring war on the American taxpayer. This is the ultimate gaslighting: the left claims to protect democracy while they simultaneously coordinate with domestic terrorist organizations to ignite a constitutional crisis. The reckoning has arrived.
The Trump administration is no longer just investigating fraud; they are dismantling a seditious conspiracy that intended to use Minnesota as ground zero for a national collapse. The era of Democrat-sponsored chaos is being met with the "Peace Through Strength" of a federal government that will not allow the Republic to be traded for political point-scoring.
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
Tuesday, January 13, 2026
Russia's 'Most Beautiful Terrorist' Sentenced to 21 Years
Russian Court Upholds 21-Year Sentence for Former Belgorod Official
Russia's 'Most Beautiful Terrorist' Sentenced to 21 Years
12.01.2026 13:42
The Military Court of Appeal in the Moscow Region town of Vlasikha has upheld the conviction of former Belgorod regional administration employee Victoria Shinkaruk, finding her guilty of aiding terrorist activities. The ruling confirms the earlier verdict and brings the case to a legal conclusion.
The court rejected all appeals filed by Shinkaruk and her defense team, thereby allowing the sentence to enter into full legal force. Shinkaruk has been included by Rosfinmonitoring in Russia's official register of extremists and terrorists.
Appeal Rejected, Verdict Enters into Force
The original sentence was handed down in December 2024 by the 2nd Western District Military Court. Prosecutors requested a 21-year prison term, which the court imposed in full, along with a fine of 1.5 million rubles.
The case attracted significant public attention after the Telegram channel Baza referred to Shinkaruk as the "most beautiful terrorist,” a characterization that sparked controversy but had no bearing on the legal proceedings.
 |
| Former official Victoria Shinkaruk, dubbed “the most beautiful terrorist,” has been found guilty of participating in a terrorist organization, illegal handling of explosives, smuggling of strategically important goods, preparing to manufacture explosives, and planning a terrorist attack. She was sentenced to 21 years in prison today. |
Seven Criminal Charges Including Terrorism
Shinkaruk was convicted under seven articles of the Russian Criminal Code, including attempted terrorist attack, participation in a terrorist organization, and illegal trafficking of explosive materials.
Throughout the trial, Shinkaruk denied any criminal intent. She claimed that her actions were carried out at the request of her former husband and that she was unaware of any terrorist purpose.
"She did not know whom the money was intended for or how it would be used,” her defense lawyer Artem Rydvanov argued.
According to the defense, Shinkaruk's former husband, who was allegedly located in Ukraine, transferred 107,000 rubles to her account. She was instructed to pass 100,000 rubles to a third party and retain the remainder for herself.
Investigation Points to Organized Terrorist Activity
Investigators identified a second suspect in the case, locksmith Alexander Kholodkov, who was also added to the extremist and terrorist registry. Authorities believe the two acted in coordination with handlers based in Ukraine.
According to investigators, the suspects were involved in transferring explosive substances to hidden caches and delivering approximately 500,000 rubles intended to support preparations for a terrorist attack.
The funds were allegedly used to support unidentified members of a terrorist network operating on Russian territory.
Co-Defendant Receives Identical Sentence
Kholodkov was also sentenced to 21 years in prison and fined 1.5 million rubles. He is required to serve the first five years in prison, with the remainder of the term to be served in a high-security penal colony.
Like Shinkaruk, he refused to plead guilty.
The court's decision marks the final legal outcome in one of the most high-profile terrorism cases involving a former regional official in recent years.
Monday, January 12, 2026
Minneapolis Is Not Even A Close Call
Update vide here
Minneapolis Is Not Even A Close Call --A Lawsplainer On Officer-Involved Shootings
The only perspective that matters is the perspective of the Officer at the time he uses deadly force in response to a threat.
Shipwreckedcrew
Jan 10, 2026
The Image above proves the ICE Officer was justified in his decision to use deadly force. He had no obligation to step out of the way that would benefit her or subject him to prosecution. He had no obligation to allow her to drive away from an attempt to detain her after the Officer at the door of her car ordered her to stop and exit the vehicle.
ICE has two sets of law enforcement personnel — Special Agents who are criminal investigators, and deportation officers who process civil deportation cases. Special Agents are covered by GS-1811 series position with a general description of “criminal investigator.” They are armed and possess police powers to investigate and make arrests for any crime committed in their presence, as well as for the enforcement of all crimes under Title 8 of the United States Code — “Aliens and Nationality.” Within their authority are crimes under Title 18 such as “conspiracy” and “obstruction” that intefere with their enforcement of the provisions of Title 8.
But the claim floating around social media that ICE officers have no jurisdiction over U.S. citizens is simply wrong. They are law enforcement officers with the authority to detain citizens briefly as part of their investigatory powers, and to arrest citizens who conspire to obstruct and/or do actually obstruct their lawful operations.
Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 is a federal criminal statute involving interference with federal law enforcement:
Section 1114 includes within its designation “any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties….”
Subsection (a)(1) makes it a federal crime: assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with such employees while they are engaged in or on account of their performance of their official duties.
Without more, such a crime is subject to a maximum penalty of up to 1 year in prison — a misdemeanor.
However, where such acts involve “physical contact” with the officer, or an intent to commit another felony, the maximum penalty increases to 8 years — a felony.
Finally, if in the commission of the offense the defendant uses a “deadly or dangerous weapon”, or “inflicts bodily injury” on the officer, the maximum penalty increases to 20 years.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, with includes the District of Minnesota, has adopted the Manual of Model Jury Instructions to define the elements of certain crimes. Under the Model Instruction 6.18.111, “assault” on a federal officer is defined as:
An “assault” is any intentional and voluntary attempt or threat to do injury to the person of another, when coupled with the apparent present ability to do so sufficient to put the person against whom the attempt is made in fear of immediate bodily harm.7
Footnote 7: The statute prohibits any acts or threats of bodily harm that might reasonably that might reasonably deter a federal official from the performance of his or her duties. Even if there is no physical contact, the force requirement is satisfied even if the defendant’s conduct places the officer in fear for his life or safety. See United States v. Yates … United States v. Street.…
In Yates, the defendant aimed his truck at a police vehicle as he was driving, but the officer was able to steer away and avoid a collision, i.e., no “contact.”
In the Street case, the incident involved only verbal threats to kill the officers, but no contact. The Eighth Circuit noted how broadly Congress chose to write Sec. 111:
In enacting Section(s) 111, Congress intended broadly to prohibit harm or threats thereof to certain federal officials…. "In order to protect the law enforcement function itself, the statute must be read as prohibiting any acts or threats of bodily harm that might reasonably deter a federal official from the performance of his or her duties." … Congress created the single crime of harming or threatening a federal official, and specified six ways by which the crime could be committed.
Case law across the country has held that any kind of instrument that can be employed as a weapon — even if designed for another purpose — satisfies this provision. Not surprisingly, case law across the country is replete with instances where automobiles were used for purposes other than transportation, with the driver turning them into weapons.
In 2017, the Eighth Circuit decided United States v. Wallace. In that case the defendant was charged with using her vehicle as a deadly or dangerous weapon in the parking lot of a VA Hospital. She was convicted under Sec. 111(b), and sentenced to 48 months in prison. The guideline range was 188-235 months.
"[F]or a car to qualify as a deadly weapon, the defendant must use it as a deadly weapon and not simply as a mode of transportation." United States v. Arrington , 309 F.3d 40, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2002). For instance, using a car "purely for flight" would not trigger liability under § 111(b). …. The jury could nevertheless have reasonably found that by driving toward Atlas and forcing him to jump on the hood to avoid being hit, Wallace used the car as something other than transportation—that she used it as a deadly or dangerous weapon.
The facts of Wallace were that a federal police officer approached the vehicle in a VA parking lot after he observed a person walk to and enter the vehicle after he directed her to stop. The driver then backed the vehicle out of a parking stall, ignoring the officer’s commands that she stop. After the driver had backed out of the parking stall, the officer positioned himself in front of the stationary vehicle and yelled to the driver "Shut the vehicle off. Get out of the vehicle. Police."
When Wallace did not comply, Atlas grabbed his gun. When he saw the kids, though, he holstered it and told Wallace again to shut the car down. But the car lunged forward toward Atlas, who, in his words "instinctively jumped, and I landed on the hood." Atlas jumped on the hood to avoid being struck as "[t]he vehicle came at me."
As noted, Wallace was convicted of violating Sec. 111(b) — assault on a federal police officer while using a vehicle as a deadly weapon.
She did not strike the officer with the vehicle — he jumped on the hood to avoid behind hit.
Does this sound familiar?
The point is that Renee Good committed an aggravated felony against the ICE Officer before he drew his weapon and fired his first shot.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY STRUCK HIM WITH HER VEHICLE.
As the jury instruction states, the assault is complete “if the defendant’s conduct places the officer in fear for his life or safety…”
That means that when the ICE Officer fired his weapon, he was attempting to “seize” a fleeing felon. All uses of force — lethal and non-lethal — to immobilize a suspected criminal offender are “seizures.” The Fourth Amendment requires that seizures be “reasonable” in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
The use of deadly force is a reasonable seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes when engaged in for self-defense responding to conduct that is reasonably perceived by the officer to pose a threat of death or serious bodily injury to him or others around him.
This is the second legal point that is being widely mischaracterized on social media — the Officer’s perception of an imminent threat of death or bodily injury is not limited just to the threat to himself, it is what he perceives as a threat to himself AND others in his immediate vicinity and the broader community in the direction of the vehicle’s intended travel.
What follows is a BRIEF recap of Supreme Court decisions over the past 40+ years dealing with officer-involved shootings under the Fourth Amendment and the inherent right of self-defense and defense of others.
Modern changes in the use of deadly force as a law enforcement tool began with the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner to move away from the common law rule that allowed such force to be used against “fleeing felons.” An interesting factual tidbit that underpinned that common law rule was at the founding was that nearly all “felonies” were punishable by death.
Tennessee v. Garner — 1985:
This case DOES NOT involve the issue of self-defense by an officer in fear. Prior to Garner, there was a view that a “fleeing felon” was — by virtue of that fact — a danger to the community even if not to the officer at the time of the encounter.
The facts were that at 10:45 pm two officers responded to a “prowler” call by a neighbor who heard a window breaking at the house next door. One officer went into the back yard and saw an Garner running away from the house in the direction of a chain-link fence. He shouted to the suspect “Police, halt” and moved towards him. As he did Garner began to climb the fence. Fearing he would evade arrest if he made it over the fence, the officer fatally shot him. A Tennessee statute authorized police to use “all force necessary” to make an arrest if, after an intention to arrest is announced, the suspect flees or forcibly resists.
The officer stated he was not fearful for his life or safety. He saw no sign of a weapon, and, though not certain, was "reasonably sure" and "figured" that Garner was unarmed. Tennessee statute justified deadly force on the basis that an un-apprehended felony posed a danger to the community. The Supreme Court took up the case to decide whether such actions were “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment when the only purpose for using deadly force was to prevent escape and there was no factual basis to conclude the suspect was actually a threat to the community if not arrested.
Here is the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on the Fourth Amendment, moving away from the common law:
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable…. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes… A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.
That is the law, and has been the law for 40 years.
Did the ICE Officer in Minneapolis have “probable cause” to believe Ms. Good had committed a crime involving the threatened infliction of serious physical harm? If yes … “deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.”
As noted above, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on a federal law enforcement officer does NOT require actual physical contact or injury to the officer. Whether Good hit the ICE Officer or not does not change the “reasonableness” determination.
Graham v. Connor — 1989.
Four years after Garner, the Supreme Court held that the question of “reasonableness” under the Fourth Amendment with respect to claims of “excessive force” used by law enforcement officers to make an arrest. Connor is not a “deadly force” case, but does establish the framework for determining whether the force used — deadly or otherwise — was “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court in a 9-0 decision, held that excessive force claims during any “seizure” of a person must be evaluated under an “objective reasonableness” test that looks at whether the officer’s actions were reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances, without regard to subjective intent or motivations of the officer.
The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight…. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested … nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises …. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: “Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,” … violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
The law on excessive force — even use of deadly force — tolerates mistakes. Based on the facts, I do not believe the ICE officer’s use of deadly force was a “mistake.” His reaction to what Ms. Good did in the 2-3 seconds before he fired his weapon were entirely justified by her actions.
[T]he question is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation…. An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.”
What would a reasonable officer standing the shoes of the ICE Officer who fired at Ms .Good have perceived in terms of his safety or the safety of others from her actions during the moments leading up him using deadly force to stop her? Did he have reasonable cause to believe she had committed a violent crime, and that allowing her to evade arrest would constitute a threat to others even if she was past him and no longer at threat to him?
Scott v. Harris — 2005.
Scott involved a high speed chase where the police officer used the bumper of his vehicle to bring the chase to an end by causing the suspect’s car to crash. The suspect was rendered a quadriplegic and sued for use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment on the basis that running him off the road was an “unreasonable” seizure.
Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Scalia stated:
[The Officer] defends his actions by pointing to the paramount governmental interest in ensuring public safety…. Thus, in judging whether [the Officer’s] actions were reasonable, we must consider the risk of bodily harm that [the Officer’s] actions posed to respondent in light of the threat to the public that [the Officer] was trying to eliminate. Although there is no obvious way to quantify the risks on either side, it is clear from the videotape that respondent posed an actual and imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians who might have been present, to other civilian motorists, and to the officers involved in the chase.
It makes no difference that Ms. Good was only beginning to drive away when she was shot by the ICE Officer. It was not unreasonable to conclude that after almost running over a uniformed law enforcement officer when she was fully aware of his presence and after being ordered out of the car, she might continue to operate her vehicle in a way that put others present at risk, including other motorists in the direction she was intending to travel.
We think it appropriate in this process to take into account not only the number of lives at risk, but also their relative culpability. It was respondent, after all, who intentionally placed himself and the public in danger … that ultimately produced the choice between two evils that [the Officer] confronted. Multiple police cars … had been chasing respondent…. By contrast, those who might have been harmed had [the Officer] not taken the action he did were entirely innocent. We have little difficulty in concluding it was reasonable for Scott to take the action that he did.
Just moments before the shooting, Ms. Good had parked her vehicle across the lane of travel in which she was headed, creating a hazard for other vehicles on the roadway. Ms. Good was completely aware and uncaring about the hazards she was creating for others by her conduct.
She capped it off with a felonious aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against the Officer as she attempted to evade a lawful effort to detain her for her obstructive behavior.
Couldn’t the innocent public equally have been protected, and the tragic accident entirely avoided, if the police had simply ceased their pursuit? We think the police need not have taken that chance and hoped for the best. Whereas [the Officer’s] action … was certain to eliminate the risk that respondent posed to the public, ceasing pursuit was not. First of all, there would have been no way to convey convincingly to respondent that the chase was off, and that he was free to go…. [R]espondent might have been just as likely to respond by continuing to drive recklessly as by slowing down and wiping his brow.
Second, we are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger…. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.
One of the dumbest arguments being advanced in social media and elsewhere is the effort to distinguish between the ICE Officer’s first shot through the front windshield — presumably while he was still in front of the vehicle and at risk of being run into — and later shots that were fired by him through the driver’s side window after he was no longer immediately threatened.
Besides this being a 20-20 hindsight analysis that runs contrary to Graham v. Connor, it also ignores a more recent 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court involving the use of deadly force against the driver of a vehicle.
Plumhoff v. Rickart — 2014, with Justice Alito writing for a unanious court:
Following a car-stop of a suspected drunk driver, and after just a few questions posed by the officer, the driver sped away. The officer gave chase and was eventually joined by five other cars. The chase lasted more than 5 minutes, and at times exceeded 100 mph.
The chase eventually ended in a parking lot where the suspect’s car collided with a police vehicle, and other vehicles made an effort to pin in the suspect’s car in — the high speed chase portion was over. But that wasn’t the end of the suspect’s efforts to flee:
Now in danger of being cornered, Rickard put his car into reverse “in an attempt to escape.” As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got out of their cruisers and … Evans, gun in hand, pounded on the passenger-side window…. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and his car “was rocking back and forth,” indicating that Rickard was using the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser. At that point, Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing Ellis to “step to his right to avoid the vehicle.” Ibid. As Rickard continued “fleeing down” that street, ibid., Gardner and Galtelli fired 12 shots toward Rickard’s car, bringing the total number of shots fired during this incident to 15. Rickard then lost control of the car and crashed into a building.
The comments I’ve seen on social media suggest there is case law that says each round fired must be independently justified as “reasonable.” They make this claim based on the premise that the shot fired through the front windshield must be evaluated separately from the shots fired though the passenger window, and if either are “unreasonable” then the ICE officer committed a crime. That’s just nonsense and I’d like to see anyone post in the comments a citation to a case saying that is the law.
Two issues relevant to the shooting of Ms. Good are addressed by Justice Alito in his opinion.
Under the circumstances at the moment when the shots were fired, all that a reasonable police officer could have concluded was that Rickard was intent on resuming his flight and that, if he was allowed to do so, he would once again pose a deadly threat for others on the road….
In light of the circumstances we have discussed, it is beyond serious dispute that Rickard’s flight posed a grave public safety risk, and here, as in Scott, the police acted reasonably in using deadly force to end that risk.
The fact that comments on X and legal beagle pundits want to claim that this poor woman in Minneapolis was not a real threat to the safety of anyone — based on their 20-20 hindsight — is best discounted and ignored on the basis that they weren’t standing in front of her car when she shifted into drive and pushed the accelerator. Had they been, they might have come away with a different impression of the threat she posed to the safety other others in the area had she been allowed to drive away.
On the issue of the multiple rounds fired by the ICE Officer:
We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”
… This would be a different case if petitioners had initiated a second round of shots after an initial round had clearly incapacitated Rickard and had ended any threat of continued flight, or if Rickard had clearly given himself up. But that is not what happened.
The “threat” question isn’t limited to the threat Good posed to the ICE Officer himself. The question extends to the threat that Good represented to public safety. This renders meaningless all the arguments made based on the claim that she had passed him and he was no longer threatened by her car.
THAT IS NOT THE LAW. QUIT PAYING ATTENTION TO IDIOTS.
Barnes v. Felix — 2025.
Justice Kagan wrote for a unanimous Court, but the issues relevant to the Minneapolis shooting are addressed by Justice Kavaugh in a Concurring opinion in which three other Justices joined.
The issue addressed by Justice Kagan’s majority opinion was the Court’s rejection of a “refinement” of the “reasonableness” test for Fourth Amendment claims. The Fifth Circuit developed a “moment in time” approach it applied in cases involving the use of “deadly” force, compared to a less restrictive approach used in cases involving claims of “excessive” force when reaching a determination on the “reasonableness” of the Officer’s actions.
The “moment in time” analysis introduced a temporal element — what amount of time prior to the decision to use deadly force could be considered in an evaluation of the reasonableness of the decision? The “moment in time analysis directed the the district judge to identify the time period under the facts of the case relevant just to the decision to use deadly force, and then consider only the facts and circumstances within that time period in judging the reasonableness of the decision.
In the usual excessive-force case … the inquiry into reasonableness would involve considering a variety of circumstances. But when an officer has used deadly force, the [district] court continued, “the Fifth Circuit has developed a much narrower approach.” Then, a court could ask only about the situation existing “at the moment of the threat” that sparked the fatal shooting…. The District Court identified that moment as “the two seconds before Felix fired his first shot,” when he was standing on the doorsill of moving vehicle. At that moment, the court found, an officer could reasonably think himself “at risk of serious harm.” And under the Fifth Circuit’s rule, that fact alone concluded the analysis.
The Supreme Court reversed on the basis that the “moment in time” analysis was contrary to the Court’s established “totality of circumstances” test for determining “reasonableness,” a test that has no temporal limit.
That inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the “totality of the circumstances”.… [D]eciding whether a use of force was objectively reasonable demands “careful attention to the facts and circumstances” relating to the incident, as then known to the officer. For example, the “severity of the crime” prompting the stop can carry weight in the analysis. So too can actions the officer took during the stop, such as giving warnings or otherwise trying to control the encounter. And the stopped person’s conduct is always relevant because it indicates the nature and level of the threat he poses, either to the officer or to others.
[T]he “totality of the circumstances” inquiry into a use of force has no time limit. Of course, the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often be what matters most; it is, after all, the officer’s choice in that moment that is under review. But earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones.
In his concurring opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, Justice Kavanaugh observes some of the “circumstances” that arise in the context of a driver who evades a car-stop by driving away:
So even though most traffic stops end without incident, traffic stops are nonetheless inherently risky for police officers. And when, as in this case, the driver suddenly pulls away in the midst of a stop, the risks multiply. A driver speeding away from a traffic stop could easily endanger bystanders and other drivers … Moreover, the very “fact that a suspect flees when suspected of a minor offense,” such as speeding or a failure to pay tolls, “could well be indicative of a larger danger….” Fleeing from the traffic stop could suggest that the driver is preparing to commit or has committed a more serious crime—and is attempting to evade detection or arrest…. [A]s the tragic 2025 New Year’s terrorist attack in New Orleans illustrates, the driver might intend to use the car as a weapon.
The possibilities are many. But the key point is a commonsense one: A driver who speeds away from a traffic stop can pose significant dangers to both the officer and the surrounding community. The question when a driver flees, therefore, is not merely whether the underlying traffic violation “presents risks to public safety”—it is also “whether flight,” and what that flight might indicate or enable, “does so.”
The totality of circumstances relevant to the ICE Officer’s decision to use deadly force would have included not simply that Good was a “citizen protester” concerned about the removal policies of the Trump Administration, but also that she had created a dangerous condition for others in parking her vehicle blocking a lane of traffic, had failed to comply with lawful commands to exit her vehicle, failed to heed lawful commands to stop as he put the vehicle in gear and began to move, the directions coming from her partner to “drive” while the Officer was in front of her vehicle, his observations of her and her conduct through the front windshield, her turning the wheel into his direction and bringing the front end around to face him directly, and then beginning to accelerate with the car in “Drive.”
As noted in the Scott case quoted above, “We think the police need not have taken that chance and hoped for the best. Whereas [the Officer’s] action … was certain to eliminate the risk that respondent posed to the public, ceasing pursuit was not.”
In various posts on X I have commented extensively on the videos that have been made public. Not a single one leads me to doubt the reasonableness of the ICE Officer’s decision. There is not doubt that he was at physical risk of harm or death when Good reoriented her front end to face him while she reversed.
When she braked, stopped, shifted into Drive, and hit the accelerator, he REACTED immediately by removing his weapon — something he had not done to that point because he did not perceive a risk until she did that.
The nonesense about him walking in front of her vehicle ignores that she reoriented her vehicle’s front end in relationship to him when she turned the wheel one way while reversed, and the opposite way when starting forward.
It may have been a poor choice by the Officer to expose himself even to the extent of making that possible, but that does not inure to the benefit of her by claiming he was in the wrong. That idea only exists in the fevered dreams of lunatic lefty legal beagles and idiots on social media.
Many have mischaracterized the policy prohibition of walking in front of — or shooting into — a “moving vehicle.” Her vehicle as stationary, and the Officer had had already done a complete 360 walk around the vehicle while it was stationary and engaged with the driver.
He may have exposed himself unnecessarily to danger by walking back towards the front a second time, but he did not do so FOR THE PURPOSE of justifying the use of deadly force. The policy prohibits an officer from purposely stepping in front of a moving vehicle to create risk of injury in order to justify use of lethal force.
Same for the policy that prohibits shooting into a moving vehicle — the policy does NOT apply to use of lethal force in self-defense, it only applies to situations where the shooting is done for no purpose other than to prevent the driver from escaping.
These are POLICIES adopted by law enforcement agencies as “best practices.” An unjustified deviation or violation of the policy might subject the officer to discipline.
But they do not alter “lawful v. unlawful” and “constitutional v. unconstitutional” determinations.
These are the only images I needed to see to form my opinion.
One ICE Officer is approaching her car and giving her lawful commands through her open driver’s side window. The car is in “Reverse” and her wheels are cut to the left. There is no ICE Officer to her front.
Here she has moved approximately 3 feet back as you can see from the relationship of her tires to the white line in both images. The ICE Officer to her front is still visible. In this image her “Reverse” white tail lights are off — she has shifted into drive. Her front tires are still cut to the left, and her front end has reoriented more towards the Officer now in the center of her front end.
This is as far backwards as she travels. Her brake lights are now off — she’s in “Drive” and her foot is no longer on the brake. The ICE Officer is now in front of her driver’s side headlight, and her wheels are facing straight ahead. At this moment her front wheels break traction as she attempts to accelerate forward. Had the tires not spun on the ice she would have made immediate and forceful contact.
Just a fraction of a second later you see the ICE Officer drawing his firearm — her wheels are still straight. That’s the moment he decided to use deadly force — he recognized at that moment the fact that she was about to run him over. He resorted to deadly force in self-defense and defense of others.
That’s it.
As a federal prosecutor, if tasked to evaluate the lawfulness of his decision to use deadly force, I would have cleared him based on these four images and the video source alone. No other video produced so far does anything to call that conclusion into question.
What the driver’s intentions might have been are irrelevant. The one thing she clearly did not intend to do was to comply with the lawful orders she was given. As a result, she opened herself up to the consequences of the reasonable decision by the ICE Officer to eliminate the threat she posed to him as well as others.
Subscribe to Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call
Thousands of paid subscribers
Lawsplainers & Ruminations on Stuff
Subscribe
By subscribing, I agree to Substack's Terms of Use, and acknowledge its Information Collection Notice and Privacy Policy.
552 Likes∙
137 Restacks
Discussion about this post
Ann
2d
This woman was euphoric in that her efforts to impede ICE were so effective. The fact that an officer had ordered her to put the car in park and exit the vehicle was not going to stop her. Her wife's filming and taunting the officers just added to this delusion that she was winning the confrontation. It doesn't matter what her intention was. She made a very bad decision to drive forward, endangering the officer, and paid the price. I see her as an easily manipulated tool of the organizations that promote dangerous means to harass ICE.
Like (86)
Reply
Share
Susan G
2d
Thank you for the time and thoughtfulness you put into giving us better understanding.
Like (80)
Reply
Share
24 more comments...
No, The Supreme Court Did Not Allow A District Judge To Order The Payment Of $2 Billion In Foreign Aid
The procedural posture of the case is going to result in a Preliminary Injunction, which can then be appealed, before any payments go out that the…
Mar 6, 2025 • Shipwreckedcrew
404
11
97
Chaos At DOJ In The First Week Of The Trump Administration? Blame Barack Obama.
For 12 of the past 16 years the ranks of DOJ Attorneys have been stuffed full of liberal progressives -- time to go.
Jan 29, 2025 • Shipwreckedcrew
213
13
27
Supreme Court Yet Again Tells A District Judge In D.C. That He Is Not King.
With 83 days experience on the federal bench, D.C. Judge Amir Ali began ordering the new Trump Administration to send tens of billions of dollars to…
Sep 28, 2025 • Shipwreckedcrew
108
15
13
Minneapolis Is Not Even A Close Call --A Lawsplainer On Officer-Involved Shootings
The only perspective that matters is the perspective of the Officer at the time he uses deadly force in response to a threat.
Shipwreckedcrew
Jan 10, 2026
The Image above proves the ICE Officer was justified in his decision to use deadly force. He had no obligation to step out of the way that would benefit her or subject him to prosecution. He had no obligation to allow her to drive away from an attempt to detain her after the Officer at the door of her car ordered her to stop and exit the vehicle.
ICE has two sets of law enforcement personnel — Special Agents who are criminal investigators, and deportation officers who process civil deportation cases. Special Agents are covered by GS-1811 series position with a general description of “criminal investigator.” They are armed and possess police powers to investigate and make arrests for any crime committed in their presence, as well as for the enforcement of all crimes under Title 8 of the United States Code — “Aliens and Nationality.” Within their authority are crimes under Title 18 such as “conspiracy” and “obstruction” that intefere with their enforcement of the provisions of Title 8.
But the claim floating around social media that ICE officers have no jurisdiction over U.S. citizens is simply wrong. They are law enforcement officers with the authority to detain citizens briefly as part of their investigatory powers, and to arrest citizens who conspire to obstruct and/or do actually obstruct their lawful operations.
Title 18 U.S.C. Sec. 111 is a federal criminal statute involving interference with federal law enforcement:
Section 1114 includes within its designation “any officer or employee of the United States or of any agency in any branch of the United States Government (including any member of the uniformed services) while such officer or employee is engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties….”
Subsection (a)(1) makes it a federal crime: assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with such employees while they are engaged in or on account of their performance of their official duties.
Without more, such a crime is subject to a maximum penalty of up to 1 year in prison — a misdemeanor.
However, where such acts involve “physical contact” with the officer, or an intent to commit another felony, the maximum penalty increases to 8 years — a felony.
Finally, if in the commission of the offense the defendant uses a “deadly or dangerous weapon”, or “inflicts bodily injury” on the officer, the maximum penalty increases to 20 years.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, with includes the District of Minnesota, has adopted the Manual of Model Jury Instructions to define the elements of certain crimes. Under the Model Instruction 6.18.111, “assault” on a federal officer is defined as:
An “assault” is any intentional and voluntary attempt or threat to do injury to the person of another, when coupled with the apparent present ability to do so sufficient to put the person against whom the attempt is made in fear of immediate bodily harm.7
Footnote 7: The statute prohibits any acts or threats of bodily harm that might reasonably that might reasonably deter a federal official from the performance of his or her duties. Even if there is no physical contact, the force requirement is satisfied even if the defendant’s conduct places the officer in fear for his life or safety. See United States v. Yates … United States v. Street.…
In Yates, the defendant aimed his truck at a police vehicle as he was driving, but the officer was able to steer away and avoid a collision, i.e., no “contact.”
In the Street case, the incident involved only verbal threats to kill the officers, but no contact. The Eighth Circuit noted how broadly Congress chose to write Sec. 111:
In enacting Section(s) 111, Congress intended broadly to prohibit harm or threats thereof to certain federal officials…. "In order to protect the law enforcement function itself, the statute must be read as prohibiting any acts or threats of bodily harm that might reasonably deter a federal official from the performance of his or her duties." … Congress created the single crime of harming or threatening a federal official, and specified six ways by which the crime could be committed.
Case law across the country has held that any kind of instrument that can be employed as a weapon — even if designed for another purpose — satisfies this provision. Not surprisingly, case law across the country is replete with instances where automobiles were used for purposes other than transportation, with the driver turning them into weapons.
In 2017, the Eighth Circuit decided United States v. Wallace. In that case the defendant was charged with using her vehicle as a deadly or dangerous weapon in the parking lot of a VA Hospital. She was convicted under Sec. 111(b), and sentenced to 48 months in prison. The guideline range was 188-235 months.
"[F]or a car to qualify as a deadly weapon, the defendant must use it as a deadly weapon and not simply as a mode of transportation." United States v. Arrington , 309 F.3d 40, 45 (D.C. Cir. 2002). For instance, using a car "purely for flight" would not trigger liability under § 111(b). …. The jury could nevertheless have reasonably found that by driving toward Atlas and forcing him to jump on the hood to avoid being hit, Wallace used the car as something other than transportation—that she used it as a deadly or dangerous weapon.
The facts of Wallace were that a federal police officer approached the vehicle in a VA parking lot after he observed a person walk to and enter the vehicle after he directed her to stop. The driver then backed the vehicle out of a parking stall, ignoring the officer’s commands that she stop. After the driver had backed out of the parking stall, the officer positioned himself in front of the stationary vehicle and yelled to the driver "Shut the vehicle off. Get out of the vehicle. Police."
When Wallace did not comply, Atlas grabbed his gun. When he saw the kids, though, he holstered it and told Wallace again to shut the car down. But the car lunged forward toward Atlas, who, in his words "instinctively jumped, and I landed on the hood." Atlas jumped on the hood to avoid being struck as "[t]he vehicle came at me."
As noted, Wallace was convicted of violating Sec. 111(b) — assault on a federal police officer while using a vehicle as a deadly weapon.
She did not strike the officer with the vehicle — he jumped on the hood to avoid behind hit.
Does this sound familiar?
The point is that Renee Good committed an aggravated felony against the ICE Officer before he drew his weapon and fired his first shot.
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER SHE ACTUALLY STRUCK HIM WITH HER VEHICLE.
As the jury instruction states, the assault is complete “if the defendant’s conduct places the officer in fear for his life or safety…”
That means that when the ICE Officer fired his weapon, he was attempting to “seize” a fleeing felon. All uses of force — lethal and non-lethal — to immobilize a suspected criminal offender are “seizures.” The Fourth Amendment requires that seizures be “reasonable” in order to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
The use of deadly force is a reasonable seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes when engaged in for self-defense responding to conduct that is reasonably perceived by the officer to pose a threat of death or serious bodily injury to him or others around him.
This is the second legal point that is being widely mischaracterized on social media — the Officer’s perception of an imminent threat of death or bodily injury is not limited just to the threat to himself, it is what he perceives as a threat to himself AND others in his immediate vicinity and the broader community in the direction of the vehicle’s intended travel.
What follows is a BRIEF recap of Supreme Court decisions over the past 40+ years dealing with officer-involved shootings under the Fourth Amendment and the inherent right of self-defense and defense of others.
Modern changes in the use of deadly force as a law enforcement tool began with the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner to move away from the common law rule that allowed such force to be used against “fleeing felons.” An interesting factual tidbit that underpinned that common law rule was at the founding was that nearly all “felonies” were punishable by death.
Tennessee v. Garner — 1985:
This case DOES NOT involve the issue of self-defense by an officer in fear. Prior to Garner, there was a view that a “fleeing felon” was — by virtue of that fact — a danger to the community even if not to the officer at the time of the encounter.
The facts were that at 10:45 pm two officers responded to a “prowler” call by a neighbor who heard a window breaking at the house next door. One officer went into the back yard and saw an Garner running away from the house in the direction of a chain-link fence. He shouted to the suspect “Police, halt” and moved towards him. As he did Garner began to climb the fence. Fearing he would evade arrest if he made it over the fence, the officer fatally shot him. A Tennessee statute authorized police to use “all force necessary” to make an arrest if, after an intention to arrest is announced, the suspect flees or forcibly resists.
The officer stated he was not fearful for his life or safety. He saw no sign of a weapon, and, though not certain, was "reasonably sure" and "figured" that Garner was unarmed. Tennessee statute justified deadly force on the basis that an un-apprehended felony posed a danger to the community. The Supreme Court took up the case to decide whether such actions were “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment when the only purpose for using deadly force was to prevent escape and there was no factual basis to conclude the suspect was actually a threat to the community if not arrested.
Here is the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court on the Fourth Amendment, moving away from the common law:
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable…. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes… A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.
That is the law, and has been the law for 40 years.
Did the ICE Officer in Minneapolis have “probable cause” to believe Ms. Good had committed a crime involving the threatened infliction of serious physical harm? If yes … “deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape.”
As noted above, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon on a federal law enforcement officer does NOT require actual physical contact or injury to the officer. Whether Good hit the ICE Officer or not does not change the “reasonableness” determination.
Graham v. Connor — 1989.
Four years after Garner, the Supreme Court held that the question of “reasonableness” under the Fourth Amendment with respect to claims of “excessive force” used by law enforcement officers to make an arrest. Connor is not a “deadly force” case, but does establish the framework for determining whether the force used — deadly or otherwise — was “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court in a 9-0 decision, held that excessive force claims during any “seizure” of a person must be evaluated under an “objective reasonableness” test that looks at whether the officer’s actions were reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances, without regard to subjective intent or motivations of the officer.
The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight…. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by an arrest based on probable cause, even though the wrong person is arrested … nor by the mistaken execution of a valid search warrant on the wrong premises …. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: “Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers,” … violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments -- in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving -- about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
The law on excessive force — even use of deadly force — tolerates mistakes. Based on the facts, I do not believe the ICE officer’s use of deadly force was a “mistake.” His reaction to what Ms. Good did in the 2-3 seconds before he fired his weapon were entirely justified by her actions.
[T]he question is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation…. An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.”
What would a reasonable officer standing the shoes of the ICE Officer who fired at Ms .Good have perceived in terms of his safety or the safety of others from her actions during the moments leading up him using deadly force to stop her? Did he have reasonable cause to believe she had committed a violent crime, and that allowing her to evade arrest would constitute a threat to others even if she was past him and no longer at threat to him?
Scott v. Harris — 2005.
Scott involved a high speed chase where the police officer used the bumper of his vehicle to bring the chase to an end by causing the suspect’s car to crash. The suspect was rendered a quadriplegic and sued for use of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment on the basis that running him off the road was an “unreasonable” seizure.
Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Scalia stated:
[The Officer] defends his actions by pointing to the paramount governmental interest in ensuring public safety…. Thus, in judging whether [the Officer’s] actions were reasonable, we must consider the risk of bodily harm that [the Officer’s] actions posed to respondent in light of the threat to the public that [the Officer] was trying to eliminate. Although there is no obvious way to quantify the risks on either side, it is clear from the videotape that respondent posed an actual and imminent threat to the lives of any pedestrians who might have been present, to other civilian motorists, and to the officers involved in the chase.
It makes no difference that Ms. Good was only beginning to drive away when she was shot by the ICE Officer. It was not unreasonable to conclude that after almost running over a uniformed law enforcement officer when she was fully aware of his presence and after being ordered out of the car, she might continue to operate her vehicle in a way that put others present at risk, including other motorists in the direction she was intending to travel.
We think it appropriate in this process to take into account not only the number of lives at risk, but also their relative culpability. It was respondent, after all, who intentionally placed himself and the public in danger … that ultimately produced the choice between two evils that [the Officer] confronted. Multiple police cars … had been chasing respondent…. By contrast, those who might have been harmed had [the Officer] not taken the action he did were entirely innocent. We have little difficulty in concluding it was reasonable for Scott to take the action that he did.
Just moments before the shooting, Ms. Good had parked her vehicle across the lane of travel in which she was headed, creating a hazard for other vehicles on the roadway. Ms. Good was completely aware and uncaring about the hazards she was creating for others by her conduct.
She capped it off with a felonious aggravated assault with a deadly weapon against the Officer as she attempted to evade a lawful effort to detain her for her obstructive behavior.
Couldn’t the innocent public equally have been protected, and the tragic accident entirely avoided, if the police had simply ceased their pursuit? We think the police need not have taken that chance and hoped for the best. Whereas [the Officer’s] action … was certain to eliminate the risk that respondent posed to the public, ceasing pursuit was not. First of all, there would have been no way to convey convincingly to respondent that the chase was off, and that he was free to go…. [R]espondent might have been just as likely to respond by continuing to drive recklessly as by slowing down and wiping his brow.
Second, we are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people’s lives in danger…. The Constitution assuredly does not impose this invitation to impunity-earned-by-recklessness. Instead, we lay down a more sensible rule: A police officer’s attempt to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase that threatens the lives of innocent bystanders does not violate the Fourth Amendment, even when it places the fleeing motorist at risk of serious injury or death.
One of the dumbest arguments being advanced in social media and elsewhere is the effort to distinguish between the ICE Officer’s first shot through the front windshield — presumably while he was still in front of the vehicle and at risk of being run into — and later shots that were fired by him through the driver’s side window after he was no longer immediately threatened.
Besides this being a 20-20 hindsight analysis that runs contrary to Graham v. Connor, it also ignores a more recent 9-0 decision by the Supreme Court involving the use of deadly force against the driver of a vehicle.
Plumhoff v. Rickart — 2014, with Justice Alito writing for a unanious court:
Following a car-stop of a suspected drunk driver, and after just a few questions posed by the officer, the driver sped away. The officer gave chase and was eventually joined by five other cars. The chase lasted more than 5 minutes, and at times exceeded 100 mph.
The chase eventually ended in a parking lot where the suspect’s car collided with a police vehicle, and other vehicles made an effort to pin in the suspect’s car in — the high speed chase portion was over. But that wasn’t the end of the suspect’s efforts to flee:
Now in danger of being cornered, Rickard put his car into reverse “in an attempt to escape.” As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got out of their cruisers and … Evans, gun in hand, pounded on the passenger-side window…. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and his car “was rocking back and forth,” indicating that Rickard was using the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser. At that point, Plumhoff fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard then “reversed in a 180 degree arc” and “maneuvered onto” another street, forcing Ellis to “step to his right to avoid the vehicle.” Ibid. As Rickard continued “fleeing down” that street, ibid., Gardner and Galtelli fired 12 shots toward Rickard’s car, bringing the total number of shots fired during this incident to 15. Rickard then lost control of the car and crashed into a building.
The comments I’ve seen on social media suggest there is case law that says each round fired must be independently justified as “reasonable.” They make this claim based on the premise that the shot fired through the front windshield must be evaluated separately from the shots fired though the passenger window, and if either are “unreasonable” then the ICE officer committed a crime. That’s just nonsense and I’d like to see anyone post in the comments a citation to a case saying that is the law.
Two issues relevant to the shooting of Ms. Good are addressed by Justice Alito in his opinion.
Under the circumstances at the moment when the shots were fired, all that a reasonable police officer could have concluded was that Rickard was intent on resuming his flight and that, if he was allowed to do so, he would once again pose a deadly threat for others on the road….
In light of the circumstances we have discussed, it is beyond serious dispute that Rickard’s flight posed a grave public safety risk, and here, as in Scott, the police acted reasonably in using deadly force to end that risk.
The fact that comments on X and legal beagle pundits want to claim that this poor woman in Minneapolis was not a real threat to the safety of anyone — based on their 20-20 hindsight — is best discounted and ignored on the basis that they weren’t standing in front of her car when she shifted into drive and pushed the accelerator. Had they been, they might have come away with a different impression of the threat she posed to the safety other others in the area had she been allowed to drive away.
On the issue of the multiple rounds fired by the ICE Officer:
We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”
… This would be a different case if petitioners had initiated a second round of shots after an initial round had clearly incapacitated Rickard and had ended any threat of continued flight, or if Rickard had clearly given himself up. But that is not what happened.
The “threat” question isn’t limited to the threat Good posed to the ICE Officer himself. The question extends to the threat that Good represented to public safety. This renders meaningless all the arguments made based on the claim that she had passed him and he was no longer threatened by her car.
THAT IS NOT THE LAW. QUIT PAYING ATTENTION TO IDIOTS.
Barnes v. Felix — 2025.
Justice Kagan wrote for a unanimous Court, but the issues relevant to the Minneapolis shooting are addressed by Justice Kavaugh in a Concurring opinion in which three other Justices joined.
The issue addressed by Justice Kagan’s majority opinion was the Court’s rejection of a “refinement” of the “reasonableness” test for Fourth Amendment claims. The Fifth Circuit developed a “moment in time” approach it applied in cases involving the use of “deadly” force, compared to a less restrictive approach used in cases involving claims of “excessive” force when reaching a determination on the “reasonableness” of the Officer’s actions.
The “moment in time” analysis introduced a temporal element — what amount of time prior to the decision to use deadly force could be considered in an evaluation of the reasonableness of the decision? The “moment in time analysis directed the the district judge to identify the time period under the facts of the case relevant just to the decision to use deadly force, and then consider only the facts and circumstances within that time period in judging the reasonableness of the decision.
In the usual excessive-force case … the inquiry into reasonableness would involve considering a variety of circumstances. But when an officer has used deadly force, the [district] court continued, “the Fifth Circuit has developed a much narrower approach.” Then, a court could ask only about the situation existing “at the moment of the threat” that sparked the fatal shooting…. The District Court identified that moment as “the two seconds before Felix fired his first shot,” when he was standing on the doorsill of moving vehicle. At that moment, the court found, an officer could reasonably think himself “at risk of serious harm.” And under the Fifth Circuit’s rule, that fact alone concluded the analysis.
The Supreme Court reversed on the basis that the “moment in time” analysis was contrary to the Court’s established “totality of circumstances” test for determining “reasonableness,” a test that has no temporal limit.
That inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the “totality of the circumstances”.… [D]eciding whether a use of force was objectively reasonable demands “careful attention to the facts and circumstances” relating to the incident, as then known to the officer. For example, the “severity of the crime” prompting the stop can carry weight in the analysis. So too can actions the officer took during the stop, such as giving warnings or otherwise trying to control the encounter. And the stopped person’s conduct is always relevant because it indicates the nature and level of the threat he poses, either to the officer or to others.
[T]he “totality of the circumstances” inquiry into a use of force has no time limit. Of course, the situation at the precise time of the shooting will often be what matters most; it is, after all, the officer’s choice in that moment that is under review. But earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones.
In his concurring opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, Justice Kavanaugh observes some of the “circumstances” that arise in the context of a driver who evades a car-stop by driving away:
So even though most traffic stops end without incident, traffic stops are nonetheless inherently risky for police officers. And when, as in this case, the driver suddenly pulls away in the midst of a stop, the risks multiply. A driver speeding away from a traffic stop could easily endanger bystanders and other drivers … Moreover, the very “fact that a suspect flees when suspected of a minor offense,” such as speeding or a failure to pay tolls, “could well be indicative of a larger danger….” Fleeing from the traffic stop could suggest that the driver is preparing to commit or has committed a more serious crime—and is attempting to evade detection or arrest…. [A]s the tragic 2025 New Year’s terrorist attack in New Orleans illustrates, the driver might intend to use the car as a weapon.
The possibilities are many. But the key point is a commonsense one: A driver who speeds away from a traffic stop can pose significant dangers to both the officer and the surrounding community. The question when a driver flees, therefore, is not merely whether the underlying traffic violation “presents risks to public safety”—it is also “whether flight,” and what that flight might indicate or enable, “does so.”
The totality of circumstances relevant to the ICE Officer’s decision to use deadly force would have included not simply that Good was a “citizen protester” concerned about the removal policies of the Trump Administration, but also that she had created a dangerous condition for others in parking her vehicle blocking a lane of traffic, had failed to comply with lawful commands to exit her vehicle, failed to heed lawful commands to stop as he put the vehicle in gear and began to move, the directions coming from her partner to “drive” while the Officer was in front of her vehicle, his observations of her and her conduct through the front windshield, her turning the wheel into his direction and bringing the front end around to face him directly, and then beginning to accelerate with the car in “Drive.”
As noted in the Scott case quoted above, “We think the police need not have taken that chance and hoped for the best. Whereas [the Officer’s] action … was certain to eliminate the risk that respondent posed to the public, ceasing pursuit was not.”
In various posts on X I have commented extensively on the videos that have been made public. Not a single one leads me to doubt the reasonableness of the ICE Officer’s decision. There is not doubt that he was at physical risk of harm or death when Good reoriented her front end to face him while she reversed.
When she braked, stopped, shifted into Drive, and hit the accelerator, he REACTED immediately by removing his weapon — something he had not done to that point because he did not perceive a risk until she did that.
The nonesense about him walking in front of her vehicle ignores that she reoriented her vehicle’s front end in relationship to him when she turned the wheel one way while reversed, and the opposite way when starting forward.
It may have been a poor choice by the Officer to expose himself even to the extent of making that possible, but that does not inure to the benefit of her by claiming he was in the wrong. That idea only exists in the fevered dreams of lunatic lefty legal beagles and idiots on social media.
Many have mischaracterized the policy prohibition of walking in front of — or shooting into — a “moving vehicle.” Her vehicle as stationary, and the Officer had had already done a complete 360 walk around the vehicle while it was stationary and engaged with the driver.
He may have exposed himself unnecessarily to danger by walking back towards the front a second time, but he did not do so FOR THE PURPOSE of justifying the use of deadly force. The policy prohibits an officer from purposely stepping in front of a moving vehicle to create risk of injury in order to justify use of lethal force.
Same for the policy that prohibits shooting into a moving vehicle — the policy does NOT apply to use of lethal force in self-defense, it only applies to situations where the shooting is done for no purpose other than to prevent the driver from escaping.
These are POLICIES adopted by law enforcement agencies as “best practices.” An unjustified deviation or violation of the policy might subject the officer to discipline.
But they do not alter “lawful v. unlawful” and “constitutional v. unconstitutional” determinations.
These are the only images I needed to see to form my opinion.
One ICE Officer is approaching her car and giving her lawful commands through her open driver’s side window. The car is in “Reverse” and her wheels are cut to the left. There is no ICE Officer to her front.
Here she has moved approximately 3 feet back as you can see from the relationship of her tires to the white line in both images. The ICE Officer to her front is still visible. In this image her “Reverse” white tail lights are off — she has shifted into drive. Her front tires are still cut to the left, and her front end has reoriented more towards the Officer now in the center of her front end.
This is as far backwards as she travels. Her brake lights are now off — she’s in “Drive” and her foot is no longer on the brake. The ICE Officer is now in front of her driver’s side headlight, and her wheels are facing straight ahead. At this moment her front wheels break traction as she attempts to accelerate forward. Had the tires not spun on the ice she would have made immediate and forceful contact.
Just a fraction of a second later you see the ICE Officer drawing his firearm — her wheels are still straight. That’s the moment he decided to use deadly force — he recognized at that moment the fact that she was about to run him over. He resorted to deadly force in self-defense and defense of others.
That’s it.
As a federal prosecutor, if tasked to evaluate the lawfulness of his decision to use deadly force, I would have cleared him based on these four images and the video source alone. No other video produced so far does anything to call that conclusion into question.
What the driver’s intentions might have been are irrelevant. The one thing she clearly did not intend to do was to comply with the lawful orders she was given. As a result, she opened herself up to the consequences of the reasonable decision by the ICE Officer to eliminate the threat she posed to him as well as others.
Subscribe to Shipwreckedcrew's Port-O-Call
Thousands of paid subscribers
Lawsplainers & Ruminations on Stuff
Subscribe
By subscribing, I agree to Substack's Terms of Use, and acknowledge its Information Collection Notice and Privacy Policy.
552 Likes∙
137 Restacks
Discussion about this post
Ann
2d
This woman was euphoric in that her efforts to impede ICE were so effective. The fact that an officer had ordered her to put the car in park and exit the vehicle was not going to stop her. Her wife's filming and taunting the officers just added to this delusion that she was winning the confrontation. It doesn't matter what her intention was. She made a very bad decision to drive forward, endangering the officer, and paid the price. I see her as an easily manipulated tool of the organizations that promote dangerous means to harass ICE.
Like (86)
Reply
Share
Susan G
2d
Thank you for the time and thoughtfulness you put into giving us better understanding.
Like (80)
Reply
Share
24 more comments...
No, The Supreme Court Did Not Allow A District Judge To Order The Payment Of $2 Billion In Foreign Aid
The procedural posture of the case is going to result in a Preliminary Injunction, which can then be appealed, before any payments go out that the…
Mar 6, 2025 • Shipwreckedcrew
404
11
97
Chaos At DOJ In The First Week Of The Trump Administration? Blame Barack Obama.
For 12 of the past 16 years the ranks of DOJ Attorneys have been stuffed full of liberal progressives -- time to go.
Jan 29, 2025 • Shipwreckedcrew
213
13
27
Supreme Court Yet Again Tells A District Judge In D.C. That He Is Not King.
With 83 days experience on the federal bench, D.C. Judge Amir Ali began ordering the new Trump Administration to send tens of billions of dollars to…
Sep 28, 2025 • Shipwreckedcrew
108
15
13
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)