ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis
-
There oughta be a name for that sort of posting style.
Declaration of authority by experience.
Short declarative sentences that cut through the bull and the ambiguity.
The moral weight of deep sadness.
meanwhile, it wouldn't be difficult to find someone with his exact credentials that thinks the opposite.
It doesn't usually work out well to extrapolate deep systemic issues - crises even - from isolated, juicy, narrative-driven law enforcement anecdotes. But whomever wrote that, is intent on carrying on that dubious tradition.
The implication that a society of several hundred million should expect to reduce to zero the juicy anecdotes of unnecessary deaths caused by law enforcement, simply by "increasing standards and accountability", remains as stupid as it always has been, and always will be. Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I don't actually believe very many people have "militarized police" high on their list of practical worries. And those who could legitimately claim that, would intersect almost unanimously with strong tribal feels about politics in general.
Just not this
deeply concerned
center right, non-partisan
military veteran
Social media poster with a profound message.
-
There oughta be a name for that sort of posting style.
Declaration of authority by experience.
Short declarative sentences that cut through the bull and the ambiguity.
The moral weight of deep sadness.
meanwhile, it wouldn't be difficult to find someone with his exact credentials that thinks the opposite.
It doesn't usually work out well to extrapolate deep systemic issues - crises even - from isolated, juicy, narrative-driven law enforcement anecdotes. But whomever wrote that, is intent on carrying on that dubious tradition.
The implication that a society of several hundred million should expect to reduce to zero the juicy anecdotes of unnecessary deaths caused by law enforcement, simply by "increasing standards and accountability", remains as stupid as it always has been, and always will be. Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I don't actually believe very many people have "militarized police" high on their list of practical worries. And those who could legitimately claim that, would intersect almost unanimously with strong tribal feels about politics in general.
Just not this
deeply concerned
center right, non-partisan
military veteran
Social media poster with a profound message.
@Horace said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I doubt you could know that since your sample set is limited to white cop/black perp/viral video scenarios.
-
I "know" it because a criminologist I follow has said it. I don't "know" it because of the anecdotes I get from my media diet.
Gemini seems to agree, reproduced below. ChatGPT was less committal.
body cams were supposed to bring a huge amount of bad police behavior to light. What has been the real effect of bodycams vis a vis transparency and accountability in what would otherwise have been civilian said / cop said conflicting accounts of events?
The introduction of Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) was pitched as a technological panacea for police misconduct—a "neutral observer" that would force transparency. The reality, however, has been far more complex.
While they haven’t been the "silver bullet" for systemic reform many hoped for, they have fundamentally altered the "civilian said / cop said" dynamic, often in ways that surprise the public.
Here is the breakdown of the real-world effects of BWCs on transparency and accountability.
1. The "Civilizing Effect" is Real, but One-Sided
The most consistent statistical finding is a massive drop in complaints against officers (some studies show reductions of up to 90%). However, the reason for this drop is often misunderstood.
- Fewer Frivolous Complaints: The primary driver for the drop in complaints is not necessarily that police stop misbehaving, but that civilians stop filing false or exaggerated complaints when they know they are being recorded.
- Officer Exoneration: In "he said / she said" disputes, BWCs have proven overwhelmingly effective at exonerating officers. Police unions, initially skeptical, have largely pivoted to supporting BWCs because the footage protects officers from baseless allegations more often than it indicts them for misconduct.
- Behavioral Change: There is a "civilizing effect" where both parties—officer and civilian—tend to de-escalate when they know a camera is rolling. However, this effect creates a plateau; once the cameras become routine, the behavioral modification can wear off.
2. The Transparency Bottleneck: Who Owns the Footage?
This is the single biggest failure regarding the "transparency" promise. The existence of footage does not equal public access to footage.
- Discretionary Release: In most jurisdictions, the police department owns the footage. They often have the discretion to release it immediately if it clears an officer (e.g., showing a suspect had a gun) but can withhold it for months or years if it incriminates an officer, citing "ongoing investigation."
- The "One-Way Mirror": This has created a dynamic where BWCs are often used as a tool for prosecution (gathering evidence against civilians) rather than accountability (gathering evidence against police). Prosecutors love BWCs because they secure guilty pleas; civil rights attorneys often find them frustrating because access is blocked.
3. Resolving "Civilian Said / Cop Said"
In terms of pure evidentiary value, BWCs have virtually eliminated the ambiguity of what happened physically, but they haven't solved the debate over why it happened.
- The "Split-Second" Defense: A camera captures the action, but not the intent. An officer can still claim they "feared for their life" based on a movement they saw that the camera missed, or that the camera angle (which is chest-mounted and fixed) did not capture. Legal standards (like Graham v. Connor) judge use of force based on what the officer perceived at the moment, not 20/20 hindsight. Therefore, video evidence often fails to secure convictions against officers even when the footage looks damning to the public.
- The Audio Gap: Most BWCs have a 30-second "buffer" (pre-event recording) that captures video but no audio before the activation button is pressed. This leaves the critical moments leading up to an altercation—the initial verbal exchange—in the "he said / she said" realm.
4. Unintended Consequences
- The "Yellow Sticker" Effect: A counter-intuitive study found that visual warnings (like a yellow sticker saying "CAMERA ON") actually increased use of force in some cases. The theory is that officers felt "emboldened" or "protected" by the camera—believing the footage would justify their aggressive actions—rather than deterred.
- Surveillance Creep: Privacy advocates point out that BWCs have turned police into mobile surveillance units. In domestic violence calls or mental health crises, police are recording people in their most vulnerable private moments. This footage can then be stored indefinitely, raising massive privacy concerns.
Summary
The real effect of body cams has been evidentiary rather than reformative.
They have been highly effective at resolving specific, individual disputes (usually in the officer's favor) but have had limited success in forcing systemic behavioral change or guaranteeing transparency, largely because the people being watched are often the same ones holding the remote control to the footage.
-
There oughta be a name for that sort of posting style.
Declaration of authority by experience.
Short declarative sentences that cut through the bull and the ambiguity.
The moral weight of deep sadness.
meanwhile, it wouldn't be difficult to find someone with his exact credentials that thinks the opposite.
It doesn't usually work out well to extrapolate deep systemic issues - crises even - from isolated, juicy, narrative-driven law enforcement anecdotes. But whomever wrote that, is intent on carrying on that dubious tradition.
The implication that a society of several hundred million should expect to reduce to zero the juicy anecdotes of unnecessary deaths caused by law enforcement, simply by "increasing standards and accountability", remains as stupid as it always has been, and always will be. Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I don't actually believe very many people have "militarized police" high on their list of practical worries. And those who could legitimately claim that, would intersect almost unanimously with strong tribal feels about politics in general.
Just not this
deeply concerned
center right, non-partisan
military veteran
Social media poster with a profound message.
@Horace said in ICE kills a US citizen in Minneapolis:
There oughta be a name for that sort of posting style.
Declaration of authority by experience.
Short declarative sentences that cut through the bull and the ambiguity.
The moral weight of deep sadness.
meanwhile, it wouldn't be difficult to find someone with his exact credentials that thinks the opposite.
It doesn't usually work out well to extrapolate deep systemic issues - crises even - from isolated, juicy, narrative-driven law enforcement anecdotes. But whomever wrote that, is intent on carrying on that dubious tradition.
The implication that a society of several hundred million should expect to reduce to zero the juicy anecdotes of unnecessary deaths caused by law enforcement, simply by "increasing standards and accountability", remains as stupid as it always has been, and always will be. Body cams have in fact exonerated police far more than they have implicated them. Exactly the opposite of the expectations of those who think like this.
I don't actually believe very many people have "militarized police" high on their list of practical worries. And those who could legitimately claim that, would intersect almost unanimously with strong tribal feels about politics in general.
Just not this
deeply concerned
center right, non-partisan
military veteran
Social media poster with a profound message.
Hahahaha sadly whenever I see a "read more" and it's that structure (usually 5-10 paragraphs) I immediately move on. It's like some of those ads that start out with "do not buy Skylight..." (clearly a commercial for Skylight), I immediately say "ok!" and move on. SUCKERS.
-
AI is Satan IMHO.
Ergo, Horace is in league with Satan.
-
So the guy that wasn’t in danger suffered internal bleeding. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-officer-who-shot-renee-good-internal-injuries-sources-say/
-
Let’s not bother.
There are far better and more defensible reasons to despise/loathe/hate Trump than this trifle. Unprincipled behaviour and lack of statesmanship, unwarranted tariffs on imports, threats against neighbours and allies, hubris, swagger, demagoguery and self aggrandizement ad nauseum are quite sufficient to disparage, despise and even hate the old orange bastard.
-
I mean he jumped out of the way so maybe he pulled a muscle? He literally ran after the car and then walked back asking folks to call 911 (I'm guessing his phone ran out of battery). He sure did a lot for someone who was "violently, willfully, and viciously ran over by a car", according to what our President saw in the video.
-
The intention then would be to stop a rampaging driver intent on using her car as a weapon.
But I know, even if the ICE officer was hit hard enough to cause internal bleeding, he should have been expected to evaluate the situation as no present risk and no future risk, within a fraction of a second.
-
What constitutes the internal bleeding? A bruise? Rupture of an existing hernia caused during 4 second fracas? As for him still off work, probably to be expected since he did shoot and kill someone while on duty. That alone could qualify for time off and post trauma counselling.
Like Mik and others, I’m not buying the Homeland Security spin as described in the CBS report.
-
I asked Gemini. Treated and released the same day. It ain't a ruptured spleen or kidney.
According to reports following the shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, the ICE agent involved, Jonathan Ross, was treated for internal bleeding to the torso.
Specific details regarding the exact medical procedures or medications administered have not been publicly disclosed by federal authorities, but the following facts about his treatment and condition have been confirmed:
- Hospitalization and Release: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed that Ross was taken to a hospital immediately after the incident where he was "treated by a doctor." He was released the same day to recover with his family.
- Cause of Injury: DHS officials stated the internal bleeding was caused by being "hit by the vehicle" (Good's SUV) during the confrontation.
- Medical Status: While the extent of the bleeding was described by some officials as unclear, he was stable enough for a same-day discharge. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin later confirmed the internal injury update to several news outlets on January 14, 2026.
- Context of Previous Injuries: Reports also noted that Ross was recovering from a separate, serious incident in June 2025, where he was dragged by a car during an arrest, requiring 33 stitches to his arms and hands.
The shooting remains under investigation by the FBI, which took over the case from local Minnesota authorities shortly after the incident.
Would you like more information on the official DHS statements regarding the incident or the status of the FBI investigation?
-
Maybe the situation is that he jumped hard enough to pull a muscle, and the car missed him entirely. If he needed to jump out of the way, or get run over, then it's reasonable for him to clock the driver as someone with reckless disregard for life, operating a deadly weapon.
It's always ambiguous whether we're talking about strict legalities or justifiability in some moral sense. I think it's difficult to bring the full weight of one's moral compass to bear within a split second.
-
That's what LEOs are trained to do. We expect them to make that judgement.
As I said, the shooting may be understandable but that doesn't make it legally correct. Do I think he should get 20 years? Hell no, but he violated procedure in a couple ways.
My fervent hope is that ICE will revisit the way their officers approach people like Good. The military shock and awe is not a good approach.
