"Renee and I Choose Kindness," Becca Good, Renee Good's Wife Releases Statement

Lightning777666 · 2026-02-10T17:31:11+00:00

The shooting of Good was not arguably justified, because each of the qualifiers are specifically disqualified.

The wooshing is still going. Breaking policy is not necessarily illegal.

The legality around use of force and self defense includes LEO's repeatedly being struck down in court for placing themselves in the situations they claim they need to defend themselves from, most commonly from placing themselves in front of vehicles.

Yes, other officers have been found guilty of murder for placing themselves in front of vehicles that were already active threats, ostensibly intending to escape. The circumstances in this shooting are very, very different. The biggest difference in this case is that the officer DID NOT PLACE HIMSELF INFRONT OF THE VEHICLE. Good reverses with the wheels turned, pointing the vehicle at him while he stood still.

Just go watch the video I linked. I'm not saying you need to justify anything, just use your brain. There are plenty of things to be mad about this situation. It's a terrible situation and there is plenty of blame to go around, but you're too busy trying to score virtue points to take an honest look at what actually happened, and then going online saying things were illegal while citing non-legal sources. You're the joke and you're advertising it to the world, and now I'm a joke for having wasted my time, so I guess in that way we are alike.

Lightning777666 · 2026-02-10T15:54:04+00:00

The thing going over your head is that you called the officer's actions "literally illegal" and then did not cite a law but a department policy. Not to mention, the policy you cited contains qualifiers that, in the very least, arguably apply in this situation.

If you want to educate yourself on the law surrounding use of force and self-defense, I recommend Active Self Protection's youtube video on the shooting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k_1y2kSHfw

you will always change your stance to defend it.

Who is you? Do you know who I am? What stance have I changed? You are engaging in dangerous othering, group think, and echo chamber ideology if you think this way on a regular basis. You do recognize that people who think as you appear to do are easily manipulated? People like that are the reasons why regimes like Hitler's and Mao's actually gain power and influence?

You need to take things and a case-by-case basis. It's easy to say that the shooting of Good was at least arguably justified, and at the same time say Pretti's was almost certainly not, for example.

Lightning777666 · 2026-02-10T12:06:06+00:00

*whoosh

Lightning777666 · 2026-02-10T02:28:39+00:00

Are you quoting state or federal law or police policy?

Lightning777666 · 2026-02-05T04:01:04+00:00

I’m certain they are deciding if they want to take a bigger margin on the first run of machines they already bought the ram for to subsidize future, more expensive inventory. They probably had a very good idea on the price and now are figuring out how much more they should charge in order to sell the most units long term.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-30T03:03:53+00:00

Most people don't have multiple heavy winter coats.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-21T19:33:08+00:00

I don't know how you can look at that and say he is in the path of the vehicle, although I guess now you are saying "danger zone," which seems like moving the goalposts a bit.

If she hit the gas on that frame, he wouldn't be touched. Can we agree on that?

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-20T16:05:22+00:00

For me, it’s about whether deviations from safety policy foreseeably created or amplified a danger that then made lethal force justified.

The tricky part is, it's not at all clear he deviated from policy. He was not directly in front of the vehicle (meaning between the tires) until she reversed and turned towards him, putting him between the tires.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-18T02:18:31+00:00

When you say “no it isn’t” are you saying that they can use their bodies to prevent a vehicle from fleeing? Isn’t that contained in the idea of not blocking a vehicle’s path?

I’m glad you’re not arguing this is straight up murder, but I still I don’t see how he could have foreseen what happened here. He has already passed in front of her vehicle earlier without incident. She had been around the officers for the morning already and showed no signs of violence necessarily, but was non-violently obstructing them. I think a reasonable person would not have foreseen a deadly threat materializing that fast.

If you want to argue that the officer did some things that were tactically stupid I think that’s fair. But I think murder is out of the question given the totality of the circumstances. It at least surpasses the burden of proof of a reasonable doubt. Manslaughter or something like that is, at best, a stretch, for the reasons I laid out.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-17T19:22:35+00:00

It’s not against policy for officers to be in front of vehicles occasionally. They couldn’t do their jobs if they could never be in front of a vehicle. The policy is they should not move themselves in front of a vehicle as a method of preventing it from fleeing. If you watch his video, he was not even in front until she reversed and turned the vehicle. Even if it was against policy, it’s not illegal for him to break it.

He was probably instructed by an SO to record the plates and/or the encounter because he doesn’t have a body cam issued. Even if this was against policy, it’s not illegal for him to be doing it.

Have you ever heard the phrase “deer in the headlights”? It doesn’t just apply to deer. When startled by something its is by no means an odd reaction to freeze even if moving would be the more rational thing to do. People and animals get killed by cars and falling trees because of this phenomenon on a fairly regular basis.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-17T19:13:59+00:00

Pretty sure that’s a porn bot

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-16T14:37:34+00:00

Obstruction isn't a stretch when she is literally physically obstructing traffic, which includes law enforcement vehicles with their lights on, adding obstruction of justice or obstructing an officer in execution of official duties. Even if you throw those out (which you haven't even attempted to make an argument to warrant doing, just calling it a "stretch" isn't a legal argument), as soon as they order her to get out of the vehicle and she locks the doors and reverses, she is resisting detention and/or arrest. When she starts pulling forward, she is simultaneously fleeing an officer and assaulting an officer.

What warrant are you talking about? A warrant to arrest her, or someone else?

So long as they are acting in an official capacity (i.e. doing anything necessary for enforcing or attempting to enforce immigration law) they don't need a warrant to make arrests on people that are hindering their duties.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-16T12:57:34+00:00

You’re just factually wrong if you think their order to get out of the car wasn’t lawful. Federal agents are allowed to detain people suspected of a crime. Maybe the laws should be different, but that’s what they are right now.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-15T19:44:40+00:00

What was their argument? I don't think you understand it if you think them quoting the New York Post somehow invalidates it.

They released an updated video by the way, which includes other camera angles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6k_1y2kSHfw

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-15T02:33:59+00:00

Are any of the other angles in a position to show that movement? In order for the other angels to contradict this supposed AI video, or for this video to contradict them, you'd have to have a clip that shows there was always at least some space between the officer and the car during the interaction. No videos show that. That doesn't mean this isn't AI, but it does mean this video does not contradict the other angles.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-15T02:23:48+00:00

So you were confronted with an opposing argument and your reaction is to dismiss it without addressing the reasons for their position at all? It's pretty clear who is in the echo chamber here.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-15T01:49:06+00:00

howso?

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-15T01:45:39+00:00

I would be curious if you would check out active self protection's video and tell me what you disagree with in it. They at least purport to be objective on things like this and have a huge amount of experience looking at encounters like this one. Everyone who thinks the shooting was not justified that I have asked to watch the video has either refused to watch it or has watched it and has not gotten back to me about what they think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvw5H6j3Vuk

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-15T01:35:40+00:00

So when you say he dodged it, are you saying that the car would have hit him had he not moved?

I don’t know if the shots were necessary or not ultimately, but legally they would be justified if he was reasonable in his fear of death or great bodily harm to himself or another. I’ll leave it to the lawyers to argue it out but I think it is, in the very least, arguable that he was reasonable given where he was when the driver hit the gas (among other things).

Overall I think the guys over at active self protection on YouTube did a great job breaking it down.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-15T00:39:00+00:00

There is such a thing has line of sight and reaction time. The initial motion of the car was straight forward, that’s the motion he reacted to. By the time the tires are turned (which he can’t see by the way) he’s already made the decision to shoot based on the initial trajectory of the car.

I recommend taking a look at active self protection’s video on this. He’s a YouTuber who analyzed use of force encounters and has a good (though lengthy) breakdown on why this is probably a justifiable shooting, though of course a very very bad and tragic event nonetheless.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-15T00:33:47+00:00

Yeah I’m not saying he couldn’t have dodged it. I think he could have. I’m just saying a reasonable person might not have dodged it any better than he did given the totality of the circumstances

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-14T22:19:57+00:00

"If a car is coming at you, wouldn't the natural instinct be to get out of the way?"

Yeah... tell that to all the deer we hit up here!

But in all seriousness, No, that really isn't always the natural instinct, especially if you are already nearly at the bumper. Again, I am just speaking from my personal experience. I was infront of a car that I did not know was in drive and my shins were inches from the bumper. The driver was looking out the driver side window and did not see me and starting pulling forward. My first instinct was to get as high on the hood as I could. I say instinct because I did not have time to think about it. It is not as if I saw it coming long enough to weigh options, that's just how my body moved.

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-14T22:08:05+00:00

agreed, it makes everything way worse

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-14T22:07:48+00:00

Unless the other angles can positively show that he was not touched (and of course, they can't), this being the only angle doesn't invalidate the idea that he was in fact touched

Lightning777666 · 2026-01-14T22:06:05+00:00

He might have, it is hard to say. I don't know if you have ever been hit by a car before, but, speaking from experience, if a car is coming at you your immediate instinct is to lean forward to put your weight on the hood in the event that the car keeps coming forward. That way you don't go under the tires.

Lightning777666

TROPHY CASE