Who is Jonathan Ross? ICE agent who killed Renee Good
- Thread starter Guno צְבִי
- Start date
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
stephenPE
Verified User
Libtards.....your intelligent reply and eloquence is noted and expected. If the real heroes of Jan 6th reacted the way you celebrate in Minnesota the criminals and traitors would be dead.........but you know that....libtard? Surely you can come up with a new invective. I mean Donnie has new ones each day for his "enemies of America" And he is dumber than an empty box of rocks
No it is not. But I accept that your opinion is that it is wrong.
I doubt you do, but my thinking here is, in my opinion, a LOT closer to the truth than what you seem to be suggesting.
Your side has made a cause celebre of the Babbitt matter, RB...and I am not going through the bother to document what has been documented ad nauseum.
I am protesting a disgusting monster trying to become dicktator of America...and the morons who are helping him in tht endeavor. If you think that is wasting time...so be it.
Whatever. I had my say on this.
No matter how wrong-headed or destructive of America, apparently.
Fine. That is still your right presently.
If you mean Trump...all he will ever do is to bring disrespect and discredit on us. You have been had...totally.
Sure.
If that side succeeds in making us a dictatorship...he may no longer have to "play" at it. We will all be victims.
This is one of the most interesting responses I got on an earlier post asking law enforcement to weigh in on whether the Good shooting was legally justified. I have his identity. But he needs to stay anonymous. READ IT ALL.
The post-
“I am a current ICE Use of Force Instructor with over a decade of federal law enforcement experience as well as nearly two decades of military experience. I can tell you the situation is ‘lawful but awful’ because it is justified, but it's awful for a lot of reasons (i.e. she didn't need to try to drive through, she was engaged in protesting, etc).
He (Ross) is also a firearms instructor, a field intelligence officer (both in Border Patrol and now in ICE), and he is also a field intelligence officer and assigned to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force - he is a VERY experienced officer.
ICE use of force policy does state what others have been arguing that he cannot create a danger. However, they had stopped her and were attempting to take her out of the vehicle and place her in custody for a violation of 18USC111.
ICE employees are designated as ‘immigration officers.’ And are therefore conferred legal authorities under 8 USC 1357 for the purpose of arrest. a1-a4 relate specifically to aliens, A5 (A) &(B) relates to ANYONE. So ICE absolutely had the ability to stop and detain her.
She speaks clear English as indicated by the video, so there's no reason to believe that she couldn't understand the instructions that she was given.
The passenger was allowed to get out of the vehicle and start filming which indicates either: A potential trap for law enforcement, or B an agitator looking for reaction. The vehicle was parked perpendicular to the roadway with an ice vehicle in front of and behind. The position of the vehicle indicates that what the agents told was true that she was following, trying to insert her car between agents, attempting to block them, etc. That becomes dangerous, because what is the reason for doing so? Is it a drop for law enforcement? Is it just harassing conduct, officers don't know, but it is intimidating conduct which is also covered by 18 USC 111.
She was ordered to exit the vehicle, which law enforcement officers are authorized to do under Pennsylvania v Mimms and officers attempted to remove her from the vehicle, at that point she backed the vehicle up indicating a lack of compliance. At that point he crosses in front of the vehicle. Here is the rub, he could have been crossing to move to support his team mate. We don't know, we don't have any intent. As an aside, good on him for having a camera rolling, especially if he didn't have a body cam.
Now when I heard the drive baby drive comment, Yes her steering wheel was locked to the right, but you can only tell that if you were from the side of the vehicle and could see how far the tires had turned where he could not from his viewpoint.
Drive baby drive being said when an officer is in front shows a lack of regard for safety, and the officer may have felt that was a trap to try to run him over. That would be serious bodily injury or death, and use of force is not a 50/50 proposition where I have to meet your force with an equal but opposite force, I can use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop your actions. When a vehicle is weaponized, it increases the likelihood of deadly force utilization. Many are also interpreting ice policy incorrectly when they say that ice policy says that you won't shoot at moving vehicles. What it's saying is that you cannot shoot at a moving vehicle to ‘disable the vehicle.’ However, if you shoot at the driver to stop a threat that is legitimate use of force. We don't shoot at tires because they move and because they don't actually stop the threat plus a 9mm may not penetrate certain parts of the cabin, or may over penetrate tires, so it would be an unnecessary risk.
Now, in the totality of circumstances - we have ICE enforcing the law on others or generally existing. An uninvolved party from out of town comes to the ICE operation, begins harassing conduct, continues dangerously harassing conduct against officers for blocks, somehow cuts them off and positions their vehicle (seemingly to prevent travel), issued commands to get out in a language she does understand, she refuses through her actions, officers attempt to take her out of the vehicle, she actively resists by moving the vehicle and pulling her arm away. The officer in front sees this go down, (I would have thought that she was going to injure the other officers) prompting the officer to draw, ‘drive baby drive’ is said, she starts going forward, deadly force is utilized. I would reasonably think that by her continuing to drive that she posed a continuing threat to law enforcement given the violent nature of the previous harassing conduct, the violent active resistance to detention/arrest immediately preceding the use, and driving through (with her passenger now outside of the vehicle) increasing the likelihood of another violent conflict.
Lastly, let's take a moment to talk about how his experience informs the use of force. He's in Minnesota, stationed in Minnesota. He's not an outsider. So he knows what is "normal conduct" for the area. He is aware of the current tactics by protesters in Minnesota including the violent mob tactics and the use of vehicles in dangerous manners to assault, resist, impede, or intimidate ICE. That experience plays a significant factor in the perception of the subject's actions. Now add to that the officer’s experience being dragged, where he now sees the officer attempting to extract the subject doing so while the subject seems to drive away. He knows that can result in serious bodily injury or death.
Is it awful? 100%. I know of absolutely no one that wakes up looking to shoot someone. I wish I never have to use a firearm, and I’ve only drawn it two times (once off duty) and taken the slack out of the trigger once. It would put a pit in anyone's stomach that they committed the most permanent seizure and took someone's life over something the subject could have and should have avoided.” https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1HKXYbtYRy/
The post-
“I am a current ICE Use of Force Instructor with over a decade of federal law enforcement experience as well as nearly two decades of military experience. I can tell you the situation is ‘lawful but awful’ because it is justified, but it's awful for a lot of reasons (i.e. she didn't need to try to drive through, she was engaged in protesting, etc).
He (Ross) is also a firearms instructor, a field intelligence officer (both in Border Patrol and now in ICE), and he is also a field intelligence officer and assigned to the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force - he is a VERY experienced officer.
ICE use of force policy does state what others have been arguing that he cannot create a danger. However, they had stopped her and were attempting to take her out of the vehicle and place her in custody for a violation of 18USC111.
ICE employees are designated as ‘immigration officers.’ And are therefore conferred legal authorities under 8 USC 1357 for the purpose of arrest. a1-a4 relate specifically to aliens, A5 (A) &(B) relates to ANYONE. So ICE absolutely had the ability to stop and detain her.
She speaks clear English as indicated by the video, so there's no reason to believe that she couldn't understand the instructions that she was given.
The passenger was allowed to get out of the vehicle and start filming which indicates either: A potential trap for law enforcement, or B an agitator looking for reaction. The vehicle was parked perpendicular to the roadway with an ice vehicle in front of and behind. The position of the vehicle indicates that what the agents told was true that she was following, trying to insert her car between agents, attempting to block them, etc. That becomes dangerous, because what is the reason for doing so? Is it a drop for law enforcement? Is it just harassing conduct, officers don't know, but it is intimidating conduct which is also covered by 18 USC 111.
She was ordered to exit the vehicle, which law enforcement officers are authorized to do under Pennsylvania v Mimms and officers attempted to remove her from the vehicle, at that point she backed the vehicle up indicating a lack of compliance. At that point he crosses in front of the vehicle. Here is the rub, he could have been crossing to move to support his team mate. We don't know, we don't have any intent. As an aside, good on him for having a camera rolling, especially if he didn't have a body cam.
Now when I heard the drive baby drive comment, Yes her steering wheel was locked to the right, but you can only tell that if you were from the side of the vehicle and could see how far the tires had turned where he could not from his viewpoint.
Drive baby drive being said when an officer is in front shows a lack of regard for safety, and the officer may have felt that was a trap to try to run him over. That would be serious bodily injury or death, and use of force is not a 50/50 proposition where I have to meet your force with an equal but opposite force, I can use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop your actions. When a vehicle is weaponized, it increases the likelihood of deadly force utilization. Many are also interpreting ice policy incorrectly when they say that ice policy says that you won't shoot at moving vehicles. What it's saying is that you cannot shoot at a moving vehicle to ‘disable the vehicle.’ However, if you shoot at the driver to stop a threat that is legitimate use of force. We don't shoot at tires because they move and because they don't actually stop the threat plus a 9mm may not penetrate certain parts of the cabin, or may over penetrate tires, so it would be an unnecessary risk.
Now, in the totality of circumstances - we have ICE enforcing the law on others or generally existing. An uninvolved party from out of town comes to the ICE operation, begins harassing conduct, continues dangerously harassing conduct against officers for blocks, somehow cuts them off and positions their vehicle (seemingly to prevent travel), issued commands to get out in a language she does understand, she refuses through her actions, officers attempt to take her out of the vehicle, she actively resists by moving the vehicle and pulling her arm away. The officer in front sees this go down, (I would have thought that she was going to injure the other officers) prompting the officer to draw, ‘drive baby drive’ is said, she starts going forward, deadly force is utilized. I would reasonably think that by her continuing to drive that she posed a continuing threat to law enforcement given the violent nature of the previous harassing conduct, the violent active resistance to detention/arrest immediately preceding the use, and driving through (with her passenger now outside of the vehicle) increasing the likelihood of another violent conflict.
Lastly, let's take a moment to talk about how his experience informs the use of force. He's in Minnesota, stationed in Minnesota. He's not an outsider. So he knows what is "normal conduct" for the area. He is aware of the current tactics by protesters in Minnesota including the violent mob tactics and the use of vehicles in dangerous manners to assault, resist, impede, or intimidate ICE. That experience plays a significant factor in the perception of the subject's actions. Now add to that the officer’s experience being dragged, where he now sees the officer attempting to extract the subject doing so while the subject seems to drive away. He knows that can result in serious bodily injury or death.
Is it awful? 100%. I know of absolutely no one that wakes up looking to shoot someone. I wish I never have to use a firearm, and I’ve only drawn it two times (once off duty) and taken the slack out of the trigger once. It would put a pit in anyone's stomach that they committed the most permanent seizure and took someone's life over something the subject could have and should have avoided.” https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1HKXYbtYRy/
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
christiefan915
Catalyst
She pulls it out of her nether regions.
Guno צְבִי
We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
christiefan915
Catalyst
It's depressing how many of these numbskulls describe themselves as Christian.I predict his life will end alone, jobless with a bottle of booze and a loaded pistol.
Who is Jonathan Ross? ICE agent who killed Renee Good once broke a suspect's car window
The man who shot Renee Nicole Good is a 43-year-old firearms instructor who appears to have defended white supremacists online.www.yahoo.com
Jonathan Ross is an ICE agent and firearms trainer
Jonathan E. Ross, 43, is an Enforcement and Removal Operations agent with ICE. He was deployed to Iraq in 2004 and 2005, where he operated machine guns on patrol trucks, before joining Border Patrol in 2007 and eventually ICE in 2015, when he moved to Minneapolis. He is also a member of the SWAT team, the St. Paul Special Response Team, and a joint FBI anti-terrorism task force.
In a December testimony obtained by WIRED, Ross described his job as "normal Border Patrol duties,” including "line-watch operations, tracking, and ... creating an intelligence product and focusing more so on the cartels and drug smuggling and also alien smuggling.” He said it is his responsibility to "develop the targets, create a target package, surveillance, and then develop a plan to execute the arrest warrant." He also works as a firearms and active shooter instructor.
Jonathan Ross's family is complicated
Ross married his wife, 38, who was identified by The Daily Mail but not named, in 2012. She has parents who live in the Philippines, though Ross's father, Ed, 80, said that she is a U.S. citizen. He did not say how long she has been in the country, stating, "I do not want to go any further than that."
Ross's family and friends describe him as a hardcore conservative Christian and MAGA supporter, who sports "Don't Tread on Me" flags and Trump/Vance stickers. Social media posts reveal him arguing with his family over the white supremacist group the Proud Boys.
His sister, Nicole, posted a photo on Facebook in October 2020 of herself wearing a face mask with the caption, "I denounce and condemn white supremacy," the outlet reports. Ross replied in a comment that has since been deleted, prompting Nicole to respond, "we have to respectfully disagree. You are my brother and I love you, but we will not engage in a debate on Facebook."
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
I always thought it was from the bottom of a bottle. You know, like a Mezcal worm. LOL
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
All MAGAts are evil liars and should face judgment from their Maker. Sad.It's depressing how many of these numbskulls describe themselves as Christian.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Posts others' comments without links....^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Gets "facts" from facebook
christiefan915
Catalyst
That's even better!I always thought it was from the bottom of a bottle. You know, like a Mezcal worm. LOL
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
and more likely true.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
MAGA morons are often victims of cognitive bias. Hence, why they believe everything Trump tweets to them and the Alt-Right propaganda shoved at them on Facebook. Most of them are simply stupid, but more than a few are mentally ill as proved by the stats at 1/6.
What Is Cognitive Bias? Types & Examples
Cognitive bias is a systematic error in thinking, affecting how we process information, perceive others, and make decisions. It can lead to irrational thoughts or judgments and is often based on our perceptions, memories, or individual and societal beliefs.
www.simplypsychology.org
Tobytone
Verified User
He's still one of two people on my ignore list, but I'm sure he deserved your comment. Of course, the hypocrisy is off the charts as usual when talking about libtards, especially the really dumb ones like Dutchy Boy. The left should be outraged about the hundreds if not thousands of attacks on officers of the law. They should be pleading with the protesters to get politically involved and protest peacefully in the correct locations but never interfere, impede, or certainly never verbally or physically attack an officer of the law. This is clearly a major effort to change the headlines. The Governor and Mayor practically tripped over each other to get to a camera and act like tough guys that really care about their constituents. As usual, the radicalized drones like those on this forum ate it up, but I don't think it worked very well with the DOJ.