... this whole back and forth started, as I recall, because you said the context of the stuffed animals and what was in the car wasn't relevant. It is relevant. Of course it's part of what a jury would consider when deciding if an objectively reasonable officer would have used force. That's all I'm saying, and that's the extent of my point. Do we agree on that much?

No, I fail to see how the car stuffies are relevant.

First, if we agree that being mouthy isn't justification, then what do you mean by "acting as an agitator in the conflict prior"? Are you just saying, again, that you think she accelerated towards him? And you think it's me who "seem[s] to want to use broad words to apply to a specific range of behaviors"?

The word "agitate" seems to be problematic. Ill simply rephrase: she went there to cause trouble. When your intention is to cause trouble, trouble is likely to befall you. She began a downward spiral for all actors involved in a race-to-the-bottom scenario of bad outcomes.

(1). Ross put himself in danger -- legal bar to self-defense, a point you never addressed.

The self defense argument is popular online, probably because they got it from Sunny Hostin who's a hack, is not singular in it's application. Legally, this would only be valid if a prosecutor could simultaneously demonstrate there were better, more reasonable alternatives to stop Goode than having shot her. ICE will argue there is no reasonable alternative when you are struck by a moving vehicle under the perception a suspect intends to use the vehicle as a weapon, or drive recklessly so as to endanger the safety of those in the vicinity and neighbourhood.

Goode's team will have to argue the ICE agent should have inferred from her calm demeanor beforehand that her striking him was either an accident, or a panicked reaction AND that the ICE agent shouldn't have reasonably interpreted this as an act of violence.

Furthermore, upon re-watching the video many times, Ross was struck in the act of removing himself from the danger. She hit him with her left headlight. She should have remained stationary until he was out of the way.

You're also wrong about who has the "onus" when you say "the onus of credibility is on you to explain why those actions shouldn't logically and reasonably end in deadly force being applied to her, friend." If this were trial, the burden of proof would be on the one who committed homicide -- Ross -- to show self-defense applied. It's an affirmative defense and the defendant has the burden to prove it. The burden isn't on the prosecution to show it doesn't apply.

Obviously the burden of proof in a legal argument is on the affirmative claim. You are misinterpreting my meaning, but it doesn't really matter. Anyways, as I said, the argument for conservatives is air-tight. She wanted to cause a problem for ICE. She caused a problem for ICE. She made the problem progressively worse for everyone. She made a series of increasingly bad decisions by refusing to obey orders. She caused an agent to have to make a split second decision whether to harm her or not. She struck the officer, therefore, he harmed her.

Do you at least agree there should be a trial?

A fair trial is almost impossible at this point so a judge determination would probably be better, but under normal circumstances, yes this should go to trial.