The Daily Populous Friday January 9th, 2026 day edition
Image from preview.redd.it and submitted by theflyingfistofjudah

xnoxgodsx on January 8th, 2026 at 22:54 UTC »

Its just going to keep getting covered up by the media.... she truly needs justice that I sadly dont think will happen

theflyingfistofjudah on January 8th, 2026 at 22:57 UTC »

Just addressing the claim I’ve seen in articles that Renee Nicole Good was blocking ICE, implying she was intentionally blocking their cars as a form of protest.

The beginning of the video clearly shows she was pulling away from the parking side of the street to drive off to the right and leave but she is stopped by another car also leaving on her left; so she stops and waves it to pass.

She then also waves for the next grey truck to pass. The ICE occupants of that truck that she waves through to pass decide instead to stop, get out of their car and escalate her courtesy into grabbing her out of her car for no reason.

Notice that she was blocked on her right side by the car of the officer who killed her, which is probably why she ended up stalling in the middle of the street letting other cars pass after the first one.

She died because she actually stopped to let the ICE cars pass.

She was neither blocking nor protesting ICE.

Those ICE officers’ senseless escalation in getting out of their car to physically grab her after she had waved at them to pass just like she had the car before them is what set her killing in motion.

Oceanbreeze871 on January 8th, 2026 at 23:31 UTC »

Dhs has specific guidelines for firing weapons and one of them is you can’t open fire on a car to try and stop it.

And deadly force is not authorize against fleeing suspects unless they pose a bigger threat

He committed murder.

Borrowed from the law sub:

“In 2014 DHS published an internal audit report stating that on dozens of occasions their officers would intentionally stand in the path of vehicles to fraudulently justify use of force in shooting the drivers out of “frustration.” It was such an issue that DHS had to issue an entirely new handbook and guidance explicitly training their agents not to stand in front of cars on purpose. They have tons of instances of their officers intentionally blocking a vehicle for the sole purpose of then firing at it - and their policy is officially that their agents should never do that.”

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/05/31/317645125/border-patrol-releases-new-use-of-force-guidelines-critical-report

Borrowed from law sub.

“”I'm not sure why sources or outlets are saying he was following training because here's direct quotes from the training manual:

Edit: ICE'S OWN HANDBOOK

"It should be recognized that a 1/2 ounce (200 grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000 pound moving vehicle, and if the driver of the approaching vehicle is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat. Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents."

"There is little doubt that the safest course for an agent faced with an oncoming vehicle is to get out of the way of the vehicle."

Page 12 includes the following:

4) Deadly force is not authorized solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect. Deadly force against a fleeing subject is only authorized if there is probable cause to believe that the escape of the suspect would pose an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person.

There actually is law + binding policy on this, and it’s not something I invented.

⁠⁠Fourth Amendment baseline ⁠• ⁠Use of force by any government officer is judged under the 4th Amendment “objective reasonableness” standard (Graham v. Connor; Tennessee v. Garner). Deadly force is only justified where a reasonable officer would believe there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and where safer alternatives aren’t reasonably available. ⁠• ⁠The Supreme Court just reiterated in Barnes v. Felix (2025) that you don’t freeze-frame only “the moment of the threat.” Courts have to look at the totality of the circumstances, including the officer’s own decisions that created the danger (like stepping onto the sill of a moving car). ⁠⁠DOJ’s own written policy on moving vehicles ⁠• ⁠DOJ’s 2022 Department-wide Use of Force Policy (which other federal agencies like DHS/ICE are required to meet or exceed) expressly says: • officers may not fire solely to disable a moving vehicle, and • they may only shoot at a moving vehicle when it’s being used in a way that threatens death/serious injury and “no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.” ⁠• ⁠That last clause matters. DOJ is literally telling its officers: if you have the option of stepping out of the way instead of shooting, you’re expected to move, not stand in front of the car and then use your own positioning to justify deadly force. ⁠⁠National “standard protocol” is not “stand in front of the car” ⁠• ⁠The National Consensus Policy on Use of Force (11 major law-enforcement orgs, including IACP and PERF) recommends that officers avoid placing themselves in the path of a moving vehicle and move out of the way instead of shooting except in rare, truly unavoidable situations. ⁠• ⁠Many big-city policies literally spell this out in plain language: officers “shall not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle” and “shall move out of its path if possible rather than discharge a firearm.” That’s because shooting at drivers tends to be ineffective as “self-defense” and hugely dangerous to everyone else. ⁠⁠How that applies here ⁠• ⁠In the Minneapolis videos, the agent has cover and distance available and chooses to move into the vehicle’s path. That is the definition of “officer-created jeopardy.” Under DOJ’s own policy, the question isn’t just “was he scared in that split second,” it’s “did he have a reasonable alternative, like not standing directly in front of a moving SUV.” ⁠• ⁠If a jury or judge finds he could have stepped aside, then by DOJ’s standard there were “other objectively reasonable means of defense” available, which means the shooting violates policy and is strong evidence of an unreasonable seizure under the 4th Amendment. ⁠⁠“Surround the car to prevent it from getting away” ⁠• ⁠Boxing a car in with government vehicles is not some neutral “protocol”; it’s a seizure under the 4th Amendment. To lawfully do that you need reasonable suspicion / probable cause tied to that driver, or some specific legal authority. ⁠• ⁠From everything publicly reported so far, she was not the target of the ICE raid and was not blocking them from doing their job. If agents had no articulable basis to trap her car in traffic, that’s a separate constitutional problem before we even get to the shooting.“

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/s/gvwnbd87Hv