Anonymous #4 22h

He’s looking worse than Biden is, so fingers are still crossed 🤞

21

Anonymous #5 21h

it was ruled a murder but the victim started the fight?

-2

Anonymous vintage_trampler 20h

“Starting the fight” doesn’t justify literally stabbing someone in the heart. It was never that serious until he took it there

-1

Anonymous #5 20h

things escalate, that why you don't start fights with random people

6

Anonymous #6 20h

True, you never know who will become psychotic and stab you for no good reason

0

Anonymous #7 20h

So do you call her mom? Or sister? How does that work?

6

Anonymous #7 20h

I just wish you guys would stop being bootlickers for one goddamn second. “Mmmmm I just loooove the boys in blue, I looooove ice agents. Please tread on me!! Please come to my house and fuck my wife!!” You guys are pathetic

11

Anonymous #7 19h

Actually the legal burden of learning and conducting the law is on the officer, not the average citizen. See as an officer, they have to know the law and procedures around traffic stops. They have the training and are expected to make the right calls. He instead went directly against protocol by endangering himself in an attempt to force her to comply with unlawful orders. You can’t be mad at her for making a small mistake and NOT be mad at him without being hypocritical

12

Anonymous OP 18h

Ignorance is not an accepted defense for criminal activity in any U.S. courtroom, though. Both parties are responsible for knowing the law and acting accordingly.

0

Anonymous #4 18h

What act of hers and how much of it was done in ignorance, and what act of hers and how much of it was done out of panic due to an unprofessional and chaotic traffic stops? We can’t ever know what her reaction would have been had the officers handled the situation according to protocol, hence the reason for the officers being the primary instigators. Had they did their job, they might not have killed a random woman that wasn’t even doing anything. That’s the entire reason FOR the above protocols

9

Anonymous OP 17h

It limits the possibilities of accidental murders or mistakes on both parties. It was an easily avoidable situation that the officers decided to play hard and fast and against protocol, as they have been well documented boasting about doing, and finally learned why it says to explicitly NOT do what they did. It doesn’t matter how she reacted, especially considering she wasn’t doing anything explicitly dangerous or threatening and the contradicting orders being shouted at her by unknown armed men

5

Anonymous OP 17h

It doesn’t matter. Ignorance does not mean a person is allowed to violate criminal statutes. Cry and whine about it all you want, but that’s reality.

-1

Anonymous #4 17h

I ask you again, what was she being ignorant of? What law was she breaking that warranted the reaction it had? Sounds like you’d rather blame a random person for freaking out then a trained officer of the law for violating their own laws

5

Anonymous OP 17h

Dude come on. “Freaking out” might explain hitting a federal agent with a car but it doesn’t excuse it. Yes, they could have followed protocol better and maybe it would’ve avoided the situation, but she freaked out and hit him with her car. At that point she’s still held accountable for her actions

-1

Anonymous OP 17h

Either she was ignorant of the law and broke it, or she knowingly broke it. Those are literally the only two options, dumbass.

-1

Anonymous #2 16h

Making a mistake and being ignorant of the law are 2 very different things lmfao. Everyone knows you aren’t supposed to hit people with cars and to listen to the cops, you’re claiming she was ignorant or unaware of a law though. I’m asking what law you’re claiming she was unaware of that she broke. Because that’s the context of your entire premise is the denotative and lawful meaning of ignorance

11

Anonymous #4 16h

Funnily enough if you have read any case reports or precedent summaries you’d understand that situations like this have already happened and it is never as cut and dry as the you put it. There’s a very real human factor to “freaking out” and courts have sided with the drivers in the past in similar situations instigated by improper training and/or procedures from officers. In r again there’s a real and historical reason for these ignored protocols that were responsible for the entire chaos

3

Anonymous #2 16h

Also while I agree with you that it’s undeniable that she did in fact graze him with her car, he also moved back in front of the vehicle after it was already moving forward. You can’t blame a driver for hitting a pedestrian that stepped out into the street without looking, but you can’t blame blame a woman for grazing an officer ignoring basic grade school and cop protocol after jumping in front of her moving vehicle? Once again, you can’t hold this view without being hypocritical and biased

3

Anonymous OP 16h

It is that simple. It’s the simplest thing in the world. You’re making the argument based on consequences—something I never mentioned. You are the one who made the asinine claim that she isn’t the one with the responsibility to act within the law. She wasn’t acting within the law. And for the third and final time, that ignorance doesn’t grant her special consideration nor excuse her behavior. Had she not been violating the law, she’d be alive and well today.

-1

Anonymous #4 16h

What law did she violate to begin with? From my knowledge she was parked on the side of the road assisting a traffic backup when the agents were driving through the congestion road and made the stop. They gave conflicting orders, and she was moving her vehicle back as an officer walked from right to left, and then back to the right as she was moving forward. Don’t dance around your claims and not explain them when asked to. What was she ignorant of and what crime did she commit?

7

Anonymous OP 16h

Dude come onnnnn. In what world is being parked perpendicularly to a one way residential road “parked on the side of the road?” Especially when their stated goal of being there in the first place was not to “assist a traffic backup” but rather to specifically monitor ICE presence in the community. She was blocking the road and directing traffic on her own lol. I didn’t realize it was even possible to twist basic facts about what happened to the extent you just did

3

Anonymous #2 15h

Says the one denying basic precedents and court rulings 🤷‍♂️ like it’s been used in defenses before in similar situations where the officers were found liable for causing the circumstances of the results. And dude you can only believe what ICE said and deny what eye witnesses have said all you want, I for one value different perspectives. To each their own I suppose

1

Anonymous OP 15h

Precedents and previous court rulings don’t change what’s on video. Regardless of your opinion on liability, the series of events you just described are not factual

2

Anonymous #2 15h

Bro multiple videos from witnesses show her directing congested traffic, boo her all you want for not being “certified” or whatever but it does t constitute ice making as aggressive of a stop as they did. The series of events I described in fact did happen, you just refuse to admit those videos into the “considered” category because it isn’t what Trumps Team has tried to market to you. Just like their claims of “no conflicting orders” being given. More lies you must believe still?

0

Anonymous OP 15h

“she was parked on the side of the road” In other words, you haven’t seen it and haven’t looked into it at all. 😂

-1

Anonymous #4 15h

Pretty sure there’s videos of her parked on the side of the road before the officers showed up, if not then I did misspeak. All that does is give more justification for the stop itself, but not their mis-use of force and conflicting orders which caused the actual circumstances. You’re hoping one of these stick, aren’t you?

1

Anonymous OP 15h

In other words you can justify the stop and intervention all you want and as much as you want, but it does t justify the officers going against protocol and using self endangering tactics in what was an obviously chaotic environment. Because that’s what killed her, was the chaos of those few seconds. The officers had the training and duty to control at least their own interactions with the situation and they chose wrong according to their own protocols. Otherwise we’d have her testimony too

1

Anonymous OP 15h

If you’re gonna work your way backwards from her actions and say it was their fault, why not work your way back one more step and say she had the training and duty (being a normal law-abiding citizen) to not park perpendicularly in middle of the road and then antagonize federal officers? Why stop just there?

0

Anonymous #2 15h

Because the situation went on further from there lmfao. They proceeded to give contradicting orders, broke protocol and endangered themselves when she had made her intentions obvious. You’re the only one beating around the bush that is who’s responsible for her death, which we’ve already clarified that while she made some mistakes the officers had the authority and training to be responsible for the situation. Her mistakes are anticipated within their protocols that they should have followed

4

Anonymous OP 15h

“She wasn’t breaking the law before she started breaking the law.”

-1

Anonymous #4 15h

I never said she never broke the law, hell I admitted it just moments ago that she could have lmao. The stop itself could be totally legal and justified for all her death cares. I’m saying they didn’t commit the stop correctly, they screwed it up 🤣 you already admitted that they screwed up too lol

8

Anonymous OP 14h

Could have? That’s not an admission of anything. She did. Period.

-1

Anonymous #4 13h

Holy moving the goal posts 😭

3

Anonymous OP 12h

You really should stop using expressions unless you understand what they mean.

-1

Anonymous #4 2h

And there’s the crash out-cop out argument

1

Anonymous #4 2h

I don’t really understand what your argument even is here. “she wasn’t innocent” isn’t a justification of her death or the blatant process violations of the officers. Even if we take it to the extreme and say renee fully consciously and intentionally broke the law, that doesn’t excuse breaking procedure, endangering everyone, or ending her life. If they viewed her as a criminal, correctly or not, that would be all the more reason to *not* rush the vehicle the way they did.

1

Anonymous #10 2h

Thank you for putting it in better words 😅

1