I’m still afflicted with Weltschmerz, but also heartened that readers had a lot to say in yesterday’s discussion, so I’m glad that when I’m low, my presence isn’t needed on every post (I did read all the comments).
Today I want to kick-start another discussion if I can, this time about what’s going on in Minnesota. I’m referring not to the welfare-fraud scandal that brought down governor Tim Walz, but the big fight between ICE agents and local residents, spurred not just by Trump sending more lawmen into the state, but by the killing of Renée Good by an ICE agent. This has led to big and ongoing protests in which Minnesotans gather in big crowds whenever ICE shows up, trying to prevent them from apprehending suspects. These are not peaceful on either side: ICE agents fire pepper spray and tear gas, while some demonstrators physically assault lawmen and block the cars of ICE agents. (To see how well the citizens are organized, read Olivia Reingold’s piece “I joined ICE watch” at the Free Press.)
Since I am not and haven’t been there, I’m not sure whether the protestors are trying to incite violence as part of their protests, hoping, as did Martin Luther King, Jr. did in the Sixties, that brutality on the party of the law will promote one’s cause. The difference is that King’s cause was to get rights for black people, while the cause of the protestors seems to be to keep Trump from using heavyhanded tactics to deport undocumented immigrants. This difference is why, I think, we don’t see many black people speaking out about the demonstrations.
I have still not decided whether Good’s killing was illegal: a deliberate act of manslaughter or even murder. Because someone was killed, though, and there is some question that bullets were fired gratuitously, I think there needs to be an investigation of the officer and, if things look illegal, a trial. We need to preserve our system of law and accountability. But I am not willing to pronounce the officer guilty, as so many are doing (my Facebook page is full of those pronouncements). That would take a trial. All I can say is that, since we haven’t yet had a trial or an investigation the incident looks like an unfortunate concatenation of a woman who should not have been doing what she did (blocking ICE access with her car, and refuse refusing orders to exit her car), and an ICE officer who may have been overly retributive because he had been through a similar experience (dragged by a car for many yards) in recent weeks.
So, please discuss this issue. What do you think should be done about the officer who killed Good? Does Good herself bear any responsibility for what happened? Are the protestors completely peaceful, or are they hoping to provoke violence? Are they trying to keep officers from enforcing the law? (My view is that all undocumented immigrants deserve a hearing before an immigration judge before they are deported, but also that that ICE is being heavy-handed in law enforcement. Further, in the end there should be a procedure to expel people who entered the country illegally, giving priority to those with a criminal record.) Sometimes it seems to me that the protestors all want open borders and no deportations, which is not in line with what most Americans want.
I have written too much already, and am still rethinking the events in Minnesota, but I thank Ceiling Cat that I don’t have to adjudicate them.
By the way, the Minnesota state legislature has just brought up Tim Walz on four articles of impeachment, all involving the corruption scandal in his state. He’s already said he won’t be running again.
Jerry,
As always, I love your evenhandedness and sense of fair play. You wrote a great post. The only thing I might quibble with is the following: “Further, in the end there should be a procedure to expel people who entered the country illegally, giving priority to those with a criminal record.”
Doesn’t the very act of entering the country illegally make them a criminal?
Thanks for a great post,
Phil Kershner
Yes, but there may be extenuating circumstances, for example someone who entered illegally but has been a great boon to the country. I don’t know, but I do know that even in the case of illegal entry, one might want different resolutions.
In the text you stated, “My view is that all undocumented immigrants deserve a hearing before an immigration judge before they are deported.”
Your reply above clarifies this some but my questions remain,
1) Does U.S. law require that every illegal alien (the formal term for an “undocumented immigrant”) must be taken before a judge before deportation? (Enforcement by Border Patrol against those deemed inadmissible or those apprehended trying to sneak through the woods across the unfenced Canadian border is a separate issue, for which no hearing is necessary before ejection.)
2) Do you know if aliens are being denied this hearing before being deported, other than the ones deported under the legal expedited removal process? If so, why aren’t they and their advocates going to Court to enjoin the practice, when they seek injunctions against almost everything else the Trump Administration is doing?
3) Does “priority to those with a criminal record” reflect any U.S. Government policy or is this just a stated preference that those without criminal records in America (yet) should be left alone? Is casting the net so wide that it scoops up drunk drivers or those without any record at all an actionable breach of policy or law, or is it just something that makes people uncomfortable? I think there are, in principle, bad people who came in illegally who haven’t been arrested and convicted of any crimes yet, but you wouldn’t shed any tears that they are being lawfully deported.
4) What sort of facts ought to lead a judge to order a resolution different from deportation? Does a judge have the authority to say, “OK, you broke the law by sneaking in but you’ve been a good chap, a real boon to America. You can stay. Here’s your Green Card.”? Or is the hearing just to make sure ICE got the right guy and he is indeed not legally in the country? I’m just not clear about the scope the immigration judge has, or ought to have, to bar or delay deportation if the paper work checks out.
(1) Deportation decisions are made by immigration judges, a kind a administrative law judge, not an Article III judge (i.e., not federal district court). Process for deportation/immigration is not quite the same as process before a Article III judge (or magistrate), but all persons in the US are entitle to due process which in this context means before deportation. (2). Some people are being denied due process, deported without proper process and some deported in contravention of injunctions issued by Article III judges. (I have no useful sense of the relative numbers.) (3) There a policy statements that priority should be given to deportation of those with criminal records. (The criminal convictions is a state matter or Article III judge. The immigration judge may determine whether there has been a conviction, but does not directly handle criminal charges.).
Thank you very much, Mr. Bogart, for noticing my comment and taking the trouble to respond. The information you provided is most helpful to my understanding.
From memory illegal entry is an administrative crime (the details of which escape me).
Here’s a rub though: ICE target people in jail a lot. Many have been deported before and this usually comes with an entry bar for 5-10 years. So if you’re kicked out, have a bar against you and THEN re-enter, that’s a felony.
ICE can then bust through a “sanctuary city” non-cooperating jurisdiction b/c they’re pursuing a felony warrant. Many such cases. (And generally the type of people you WANT deported).
D.A.
NYC
I saw a list of some of the characters deported from Minnesota by ICE so far, and they included convicted rapists, child molesters, murderers, and other violent offenders. All had been under longstanding deportation orders. The people protesting against these deportations would appear to want such people as their neighbors; good that the feds are saving them from such play-acting foolishness. They should be grateful. But what it indicates to me is that many of the protestors must have very empty lives to be doing this. Not necessarily a god-shaped hole, but a hole of some kind.
Sure, some are unsavory characters and should be deported. But that little word “some” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. What about the others? The ones not on the list you saw?
Such as? If they are in the country illegally they are subject to deportation. I am old enough to recall a time when that was not the least bit controversial. In fact people like Ceasar Chavez who championed deportations were heroes to the Left and the Dems back then. Illegals were regarded as taking jobs from citizens, driving down wages and undermining unions (hence Reagan’s mass amnesty as part of his union-busting strategy). Back then it was the Repubs who were for open borders.
As I understand it, the raids are meant to target serious criminal aliens. However, Any other illegals encountered in that process are also subject to arrest.
So, they target a child rapist at his known residence, and once there find that his five roommates are also in the country illegally. All of them get detained.
In addition, some of the discussion is about people detained who have not been convicted of a violent felony in the US. That does not mean that they have no criminal history prior to entering the US, or that they have not committed serious but non-violent crimes.
One observation that people are mostly overlooking is that these sorts of operations have been taking place for decades, all over the US. When it happens in Arkansas or someplace like that, there is little drama and nothing much to make the news. The difference is that in Minneapolis and similar places, There is a large organized resistance to federal law enforcement, endorsed by local officials.
The small team that would be used in Alabama has to be augmented by lots of other officers, because they have to plan for the likelihood that people will vandalize vehicles or block their passage, or even that they may be physically attacked by large mobs of people.
This is in reply to Mike’s:
“Such as? If they are in the country illegally they are subject to deportation. I am old enough to recall a time when that was not the least bit controversial. In fact people like Ceasar Chavez who championed deportations were heroes to the Left and the Dems back then. Illegals were regarded as taking jobs from citizens, driving down wages and undermining unions (hence Reagan’s mass amnesty as part of his union-busting strategy). Back then it was the Repubs who were for open borders.”
Per AI and my memory:
“President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in 1986, which granted amnesty, allowing nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants who had lived in the U.S. since before January 1, 1982, to apply for legal status, while also establishing employer sanctions to curb future illegal immigration. This major bipartisan law provided a pathway to lawful permanent residency for many long-term undocumented residents, including a special provision for agricultural workers.”
Ought the U.S. have one more such amnesty, this time going beyond “employer sanctions” and, as necessary and sufficient, building a wall and controlling our borders – and as a consequence avoiding this ICE stuff? (Unless of course we are supposed to submit to those who want open borders.)
ICE has arrested over 2500 people in Minnesota, some are citizens. They posted a story in which they could identify 10 of those as the worst of the worst. I personally have no issue with deporting those 10. What happens with the other 2490+?
Us people protesting (I am not in Minnesota) are not ‘protesting against THOSE deportations’ (modification mine). We are protesting the tactics they use against citizens and those legally in this country. ICE is breaking windows, ripping people out of cars, and throwing them face first onto concrete. ICE broke ribs on a 79 year old US citizen in LA. ICE broke ribs on a 67 year old US citizen in Chicago. It would take too long to report all the abuses. Please do not defame us as supporting the 10 cherry picked by ICE.
ICE reports show 16,523 people with no record in ICE detention (I didn’t find an equivalent number for Minneapolis). We know they are picking immigrants up at court dates, which indicates most of those people were following the rules for legal immigration. ICE deports them too. More than any other category of detention (those with criminal convictions or those with pending charges). Deport the ones with convictions. Don’t deport the rest until due process has been completed.
Please abide by the Roolz, be civil, and don’t paint me as someone with ‘very empty lives’. Again, I have no problem with deportations of criminals, using due process. I am not grateful for cruelty against US citizens and legal residents, nor should I be. This is tyranny.
I took Martin Niemöller’s quote to heart.
I have heard talk of a few cases where ICE detained citizens but such mistakes are very rare from what I could tell. Some more relevant figures here from NBC News suggesting they have a lot of work left to do:
ICE told Congress last year that, as of July, it had identified 435,000 unauthorized immigrants with criminal convictions in the United States who were not in custody. Of those non-citizens, 13,099 were convicted of murder and 15,811 were convicted of sexual assault. As of the end of May, 2025, ICE had arrested 752 non-citizens convicted of murder and 1,693 convicted of sexual assault.
The short answer to your question, since you pose it as one, is that if those other 2490+ are in fact not lawfully in the country they should be deported too, just as the law says. No criminal record doesn’t enter into it. If you want to make illegal aliens with no records immune to deportation, you need to change the immigration law.
Can you let us know if those injured US citizens were interfering with lawful police enforcement operations when they were attacked by ICE? Or did ICE just randomly sweep them off the sidewalk for no reason other than that they were standing there? I’ve seen one video of a 30’s-looking guy who after talking to ICE officers behind a vehicle walks ahead to stand in the road in front of it with his hand up in the manner of a police officer. An ICE agent on foot body-checks him to the pavement out of the way so the vehicle can proceed.
The reason why I don’t think the Good shooting can be discussed rationally by the commons mob — who thankfully have no input into the disposition of the case — is that if you show that video clip to 100 people, there will be some who will break down crying about fascism and others who will say, “FAFO, Libtard.”
@mike
1) Based on the numbers for those 435,000 non-detained with criminal convictions, 79657 were called out as having some specific conviction. The ICE numbers tell you those 79657 were ‘The worst of the worst’, a decent 18% of the 435,000. The ones Trump campaigned on removing. Sure, deport those. But he lied, and ICE is grabbing anyone who looks Hispanic. The numbers suggest there are low level offenses committed e.g. speeding (which we have likely all done whether a cop was there or not). If that is your source, you have no more data than I have now. That ICE data also does not state the difference between illegal non-citizens and legal non-citizens, those with visas or green cards. It just refers to them as non-citizens. I personally am not in favor of deporting someone with a green card over speeding 5 miles above the speed limit. But according to the statistics you provided, those could be nearly 81% of those 435,000 people. I am not saying it is the full 81%, because the numbers you suggested didn’t have the breakout to determine that. But it could be, and that is my issue. ICE was lying with statistics. More accurately, Rep Mark Green was pointing at the 18% and hand waving the other 81% (truncated) – while he wanted the 81% deported also.
2) You never address the immigrants who were legally in this country, going to court hearings to continue their lawful presence, where ICE detains them anyway. Here is a quote, “ICE attorneys frequently request dismissals, with reports highlighting periods where thousands of such motions were filed in a short time (e.g., over 6,000 between May-July 2025)”. So 6000 people trying to ‘come in the right way’ were stopped by ICE attorneys. That is my concern. As a nation of laws, this is unacceptable.
Unlike your predilection to ascribe the worst of motives onto me, I will not do so for you. You clearly cannot read my mind. I gladly admit I cannot read yours.
I am fine with deporting those who committed the worst crimes. I am fine with deporting ones who crossed the border without requesting asylum. I am fine with deporting those who lied on their application.
I am protest ripping people from their cars and beating them simply for not following conflicting orders. I protest having asylum cases dismissed merely so ICE can deport someone who was trying the legal route. I protest sending anyone to torture prisons like CECOT.
Due process of law!
@Leslie
“The short answer to your question, since you pose it as one, is that if those other 2490+ are in fact not lawfully in the country they should be deported too, just as the law says. No criminal record doesn’t enter into it. If you want to make illegal aliens with no records immune to deportation, you need to change the immigration law.”
Agreed, I never suggested that change. I suggested that some of that number will be legal non-citizens, and those should not be deported unless they committed a crime. I also suggested they be given due process, which is not grabbing them off the street and deporting them to CECOT or without a hearing. If you thought I said otherwise, that is not my doing.
“Can you let us know if those injured US citizens were interfering with lawful police enforcement operations when they were attacked by ICE?”
Sure. The one in LA was running a car wash. He was concerned about what was happening to his employees. Watch the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU2-y0BOCAY
Here is the 67 year old (though the clip has someone say he was 70). In this one, we don’t see why ICE pushed him to the ground, just that neighbors were concerned for him. Neither of them show interference.
‘The reason why I don’t think the Good shooting can be discussed rationally by the commons mob — who thankfully have no input into the disposition of the case — is that if you show that video clip to 100 people, there will be some who will break down crying about fascism and others who will say, “FAFO, Libtard.”’
Are you not concerned that without time to investigate whatsoever, the Administration declared Good was a domestic terrorist and the ICE agent was run over, in the hospital, and was justified? They are the ones with ‘input into the disposition of the case’, and they lied. That is not an independent assessment. I am concerned the fix is in.
The fact is this country was founded on the principle of jury trial. That is 12 members of the ‘common mob’ to decide guilt, not the elites.
Sorry, I seem to have not linked the 67 year old video.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qUVSeDZ_kF8
Dragon, I strongly agree with you. I agree that illegal immigrants should be deported if a hearing denies them admittance, and legal immigrants should not be deported unless they have commuted a crime. Basic principles of American civil justice should not be curtailed by fiat from our current leader. He frequently conflates criminal illegal immigrants with illegal immigrants as a whole, but the population of illegal immigrants as a whole is statistically more law abiding than ordinary American citizens.
Regarding Ms Good’s killing, for me the first shot is legitimately controversial; I would like to see more information before deciding. But looking closely at the photos of the second and third shots made at point-blank range as the car passed by him should be enough to convince even a Republican that (a) the shots were unnecessary and (b) they were deliberately intended to kill the occupant. Whether this rises to the level of “murder” as legally defines will require an investigation, but it fits the ordinary-language definition of murder.
Apparently the federal government does not want anyone to do that investigation. The DOJ refuses to investigate the shooter’s behavior and is actively preventing local authorities from doing so. This alone should tell our right-wing readers that something is rotten here.
Just two points, cognizant of Da Roolz:
1) A jury is only ever convened if the Executive branch decides on the basis of expert review of evidence that there is both a reasonable likelihood of conviction and that a prosecution would be in the public interest. The Executive Branch decides whether Agent Ross goes to trial. The mob, to whom the Executive is not beholden, does not. That’s what I mean when I say the mob’s “concerns” about this shooting and about any remarks from officials of the Administration are entirely irrelevant. Let off steam, sure, but the Administration doesn’t have to listen to you. Only your Congressman does.
2) “Legal non-citizens” absolutely can be deported without being convicted of a crime. In your reply to Mike you referred to those with visas or Green Cards. You might wish they shouldn’t be, but they can. The State Dept. can revoke a visa on receipt of any derogatory information about the visa holder and then the person must leave. A Canadian visitor who was caught working in the U.S. during the six-month period we’re allowed to visit would be immediately deported without a trial and prohibited from re-entering the U.S. for a long time. A person living legally in the U.S. while his refugee claim is being adjudicated will be deported immediately that the claim is denied, even if he has committed no crime. We foreigners need to know this. American citizens don’t.
The bar is higher to deport lawful permanent residents (“legal immigrants”.) Nonetheless, Canadians with Green Cards living in the U.S. are well aware that they don’t have a right to re-enter the U.S. Just as any alien seeking entry must, they have to convince the Border Patrol on return from every trip abroad that they are going to be a net benefit to the U.S. Only U.S. citizenship confers an absolute right to enter the U.S., and absolute protection from deportation.
I think that there should be a formal state investigation into the death with the ICE officer shooter listed as a person of interest in the case. All information and material pertaining to the investigation such as the vehicle which has been impounded by federal authorities and witness statements and liberal access given to possible further interviews with other ICE agents should be shared immediately with state investigators and any refusal by federal authorities should be followed by obstruction of justice charges up the chain of command.
Well said Jerry, and I agree that it’s evenhanded.
I’m curious about a couple of things and wonder if anyone in this forum can add some insight. First, it kind of looks like the ICE agent probably didn’t have to shoot Good to protect himself. I’m uncertain about this, so please take it as a what-if. The question is whether he is legally protected in shooting if he reasonably thought that he was in danger, even if it now looks like he might have just stepped out of the way. A second question is does it matter legally which bullet was fatal? Thanks in advance for any of your thoughts.
I spent a couple years in law enforcement in my youth, and this is procedure for police:
– never step in front or in back of a moving vehicle.
– never fire at a moving vehicle except when clearly necessary to save lives.
– a firearm should only be used when there is no other option to protect lives, including the officer’s, and not to protect property.
– never attempt to forcibly open a vehicle door except when necessary to protect lives.
The ICE agent violated every one of those procedures, which are detailed in ICE’s and Border Patrol’s own procedural manuals. Further, ICE do not have the same police authority as commissioned police. Their only authority is to detain undocumented individuals, and can’t forcibly enter private property to do so, or arrest citizens.
Border Patrol is only authorized to operate within 100 miles of a US border.
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
What is happening in Minnesota is in violation of several Federal statutes.
He seems to step in front of the vehicle just as Good starts backing up.
In the videos I’ve seen he does not attempt to open any of the vehicle’s doors. He doesn’t touch it. It’s Good’s wife who attempts to open a door.
Two other officers attempted to open the driver side door, and one reached inside the open window attempting to do so. That was when Ms Good started driving away.
I believe that it is clearly homicide, at some level. The officer was not in danger, and his shot to her face cannot reasonably be seen as any form of self-defense. If she was disobeying his order to stop the car, he could have shot out a tire or two and brought her a halt. Driving away from a policeman who tells you to stop is a crime, but it isn’t a capital crime.
There’s some evidence (other more random shots into the vehicle. 2-3?) suggest he was doing that. It is possible actually hitting was an unlucky mistake. We’ll see tho.
best,
D.A.
NYC
I have never handled a gun and know nothing about ballistics. That said, one photo of the car appeared to show a bullet hole in the front windshield very low down – far too low, I would have thought, for the bullet to have hit the lady in the face. So perhaps she was killed by the end or 3rd shots which might have been fired through the side window. If the agent intended to shoot out the tires and hit her accidentally, it probably won’t look too good that he was holding a phone in the other hand, recording.
Given that the car continued another 30 or so yards down the road after the driver was shot, I am wondering how effective shooting the driver even is as a self-defense action. Would it stop someone from flooring the accelerator, if that were their intention? I guess it might.
I have read several places now – and have no reason to doubt it – that law enforcement officers are trained not to shoot at a moving vehicle, precisely because of the danger of an out of control vehicle both to the officers themselves and to bystanders. (Exceptions occur, of course, as when a car is actively used as a weapon.)
Also, they are trained to avoid as far as possible to put themselves in a situation that can easily lead to a need (or perceived need) to use lethal force. Stepping in front of a car being a prime example. So if nothing else, this seems like very poor judgment on his part.
Aside to the commenter at the top of this thread: Yes, this was definitely homicide. That simply means killing a human being. There is such a thing as justified homicide, and this discussion is in part about whether that label applies.
You are correct.
Key ICE/DHS Use-of-Force Policies:
Approaching Vehicles: ICE OFFICERS ARE TRAINED TO NEVER APPROACH A VEHICLE FROM THE FRONT and instead to use a “tactical L” or 90-degree angle position to minimize risk of injury. OFFICERS ARE EXPECTED TO MOVE OUT OF THE PATH OF A MOVING VEHICLE, IF POSSIBLE, as intentionally placing oneself in danger “UNDERMINES THE CLAIM THE DEADLY FORCE WAS NECESSARY”. [The shooter violated this policy]
Firing at Moving Vehicles: ICE/DHS policy generally PROHIBITS OFFICERS FROM DISCHARGING FIREARMS AT A MOVING VEHICLE SOLELY TO DISABLE IT OR PREVENT A SUSPECT’S ESCAPE [Renee Good was not a suspect in any crime anyway]. An exception is made only if the occupants of the vehicle are threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle, or if the vehicle itself is being used as a deadly weapon and NO OTHER REASONABLE MEANS OF DEFENSE (INCLUDING MOVING OUT OF THE WAY) EXISTS. [The shooter violated this policy]
Use of Force Justification: The use of deadly force is permitted only when an officer has a reasonable belief that a subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Force must be objectively reasonable and USED ONLY WHEN NO REASONABLY EFFECTIVE, SAFE, AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXISTS. [The shooter violated this policy: There was an alternative: He should have followed the above two policies]
[My emphasis throughout]
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmt-dir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf
He hit her with all three shots. The two through the side window just to make sure she was dead. He was aiming for the driver and he hit her each time he shot.
Pretty hard to miss from less than 10-feet. The side window shots were less than 3 feet. (Speaking as a very experienced pistol shooter.)
DHS policy prohibits firing at a vehicle to disable it. (See below)
Why didn’t he just let her drive away? ICE has no jurisdiction to arrest citizens in Minneapolis or issue citations there. He wanted to punish someone he was angry at, full stop.
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmt-dir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf
Thanks to you, Jim for posting the relevant policies. “Thems the facts”:where most everything else is subject to your perspective (political, emotional, moral, etc). Call me a cynic, but the premature statement isssued by Kristi Noem seems to have been carefully crafted to cover ICE’s ass. I strongly identify with your statement that “He wanted to punish someone he was angry at…” That is a feeling, not a fact. I’m not inside the guy’s head, but…
I guess you didn’t look at the photos Jerry posted yesterday. Those last two shots were not random, they were taken as he lunged towards the moving vehicle to put his pistol about 2 ft from her head and fired. The window was apparently open at the time. This was a rage killing.
Please look at those photos. I cannot believe that any reasonable person could justify those last two shots.
I agree! I watched the video of the ICE shooting, and I don’t see how anyone could call it self-defense. The driver was clearly angling away from the agent, and in any case, she was driving so slowly that the agent was not in any danger. Nevertheless, he shot her at close range, not once, but three times.
Granted, Renee Good showed bad judgment by attempting to leave, but that didn’t give the ICE agent the right to execute a woman who had not been convicted of any crime. I’m afraid that if this ICE agent goes unpunished, other agents will feel emboldened to use violence against the rest of us. Any one us could be the next Renee Good.
ISTM the current policy is for ICE agents to feel as emboldened as possible; the purpose being not to uphold the law or even to exact revenge, but to intimidate illegal immigrants (to self-deport), their sympathisers (to STFU), and the wider public (to acquiesce). “Any one us could be the next Renee Good” is a feature of this policy, not a bug. Another name for it is “terror”.
Right. And we’re gonna go save the citizens of Iran. Could it get any stupider?
To answer your rhetorical question: yes. We all know now that there is no stupidity limit. I used to think there was, but the old assumptions were obviously wrong.
The shooter’s father was interviewed, stating that one of his concerns was the other officer, who had his hands inside the car when she tried to drive off. Getting dragged down the road could seriously injure you, and was what happened to the shooter in an earlier incident. Surely protecting another officer (or civilian) from serious harm counts about like self-defence?
Clearly? He was to the right, she reversed swinging him in front, then moved forward. With hindsight, we can see she was eventually turning right, past him, but whether he should have known that seems hard to judge. Some videos seem to show the wheel nearest him spinning as she accelerated, indicating it wasn’t gentle or slow.
From what I read, everyone is trained to keep shooting, once you decide to start. That’s just how you use a handgun. Three shots in less than 1 second, re-analysing the situation takes longer than that. (If you watch some cop youtube, you will see plenty of bad guys who keep coming after the first few shots. That’s what the training is designed around.)
I don’t know if it’s justified. But I wish everyone (on all sides) would try hard to get all the facts right.
It certainly seems this could easily have been avoided. By her — not driving off when under arrest would be smart. By the cops — the car that pulled up to arrest her could have parked so as to block her vehicle in. Etc.
Look at the photo of the third shot, posted by Jerry yesterday. The other agent is not even touching the car at the time of that shot. Video of the second shot also seems to show the agent was not in any danger then. He does seem to have reached slightly into the car around the time of the first shot. In fact that agent was almost in the line of fire of the first shot, and he moves quickly away when the agent starts shooting, as if he himself is afraid he might be accidentally shot.
The Legal Eagle YouTube channel had a pretty good and quite even-handed and thorough analysis of this situation so far. https://youtu.be/7AQbhes-Ntw?si=hxsmLfT5NayJMt7y
In what other instance of a federal officer shooting and killing a civilian is that officer whisked away? Why is ICE using cell phones and not body cams? Why have the feds frozen out state investigators? Anything ICE or the White House states regarding this situation is likely a lie or a coverup.
I think citizens are protesting because they have no other recourse. ICE basically has carte blanche to do as they please and Congress won’t rein them in. I also think ICE is now Trump’s private army to use in domestic situations. It’s amazing how quickly a segment of our country went from “We can’t breathe through masks” to “Federal agents can wear masks” and the “Don’t tread on me” crowd is now the “Comply or die” crowd.
Plus a large number for your last sentence. The hypocrisy is staggering. And they don’t recognize it. So blinded are they by MAGA loyalty.
Many, unfortunately, do recognize the hypocrisy. They don’t care. If they get what they want (power, money, “own the libs”, hurt the other, be they a different color, different religion, different ethnicity, whatever) the hypocrisy is a tool. Say whatever gets you to the goal.
I have the joy of working with several people that think this way, and the many scars on my tongue to prove it.
Hear hear!!
Yes. It is depressing to see how many of my fellow citizens continue to rationalize ways to support the Trump Administration. Previous administrations managed to deport illegals by the hundreds of thousands, even millions, without routine law breaking or the occasional murder.
Operational preparation of the environment – ongoing measures establish the frame and diagnosis in anticipation of any conflict : https://youtu.be/rKzI9fDE4Gs?si=EhMuLEuXm19lXTwZ
“It doesn’t matter where the division line goes.”
-Yuri Bezmenov
1983
Operational directives – examples :
“Put your target in a decision dilemma.”
“Escalate strategically.”
More : https://beautifultrouble.org/toolbox/principle
The objective is to advance a power that promises conflict will never happen again.
Leftist theory – a conflict-centered theory, originating centuries ago expresses this over and over to this day :
Find out what agitates the masses the most, and drive that mass line into active measures – conflict – as a duty of conscience, at the expense of the masses and funders like Neville Roy Singham in our modern era. Continued conflict indicates a need for more scrupulosity of theory, more compliance.
“We cannot repeat too often that men do not lead the Revolution; it is the Revolution that uses men.”
Joseph de Maistre
Considerations on France
1796
Correct, Bryan. And as has been stated here by a few before, the right and the left now have more in common than does the right and MAGA and the left and these new extreme liberals. How do we gather ourselves at the sensible edges of right and left, excluding the extremes on either side and repulse this nonsense? Seriously. Do you think it’s possible for sensible people to come together and force out these two extremes that are feeding one another?
I think it’s worth pointing out that ICE is only having issues in Blue cities. I don’t know if the shooting was justified, but Good and her wife clearly went to the scene intent on disrupting law enforcement. That is just stupid and dangerous. Why, why are these people so determined to protect illegal aliens from the legal consequences of their status? The obstructionism seems to have given the press and politicians cover to not talk about that.
Irrelevant to the use of force question. People in the USA are free to assemble in public spaces and express their views. This can take many forms, including protests.
Not liking someone’s politics isn’t justification for use of deadly force.
At least one of the ICE agents, immediately after they killed her, “Fucking bitch!” Telling.
It does indirectly pertain to the use of force. Increasing the agents’ adrenaline (and the protesters’), spoiling for a fight—they made violence likely to take place.
I’ve just heard from CBS News that the ICE agent who killed good suffered from internal bleeding, presumably from being struck by her car. It’s not clear how serious the bleeding was given that he was treated at the hospital and released. But it may be relevant to any trial.
The news item: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-officer-who-shot-renee-good-internal-injuries-sources-say/
Having seen the several videos and having watched from day 1, from multiple angles, I find it hard to believe he suffered injuries that what cause internal bleeding from this event, unless he’s on massive doses of anti-platelet and/or anticoagulant medications. It smells fishy to me.
I expect the medical records will be thoroughly viewed and considered. Later videos showed that the car did hit him and he rolled along the side. It could be (and I am not a lawyer, not a doctor, and not a US citizen) that, for instance, the wing mirror broke a rib which punctured tissue and caused internal bleeding.
Our local UK medical shows suggest that minor internal bleeding is often monitored and will resolve without surgery. But it would be evidence of violent action.
” . . . and not a US citizen . . . .”
Your not being a U.S. citizen does not make your view less worthy of consideration. (Navel gazing “American Exceptionalism” notwithstanding.) Press on sir!
You guys are tough. If he gets Group A strep necrotizing fasciitis (“flesh-eating disease”) from the bruise — it happens, you know — would that satisfy you?
What, pray tell, are “massive doses” of anti-platelet and/or anticoagulant medications? People on normal doses of them can bleed like stink and I’ve never heard of anyone getting “massive doses.” Whatever for?
In any event, the assailant takes his victim as he finds him. If he was taking those medications, or had thin ribs or something, the bleeding is still on the driver who hit him.
Perhaps you just meant to say, “It smells fishy to me” and leave it at that.
I didn’t simply say “It smells fishy to me,” because I don’t like to make declarations without having and hopefully relating some basis for making them.
With respect to “massive doses” of so-called blood thinners, it was a sort of reductio ad absurdum, though that may not be the precise term I want.
I AM a physician and have treated people in many circumstances and with injuries, and I do know how people can bleed on normal doses of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents. Having watched all those videos, from various angles, I did not see any contact between the vehicle and this agent that could explain internal bleeding, unless the agent were, for instance, supratherapeutic on warfarin or similar. If he IS on anticoagulants, he should probably not be in the field, potentially encountering even minor bumps and bruises, let alone head trauma or what have you.
If he has some previously undiagnosed coagulopathy or osteopenia, and he had them revealed because of his very mild (to him) interactions, he should consider himself lucky to have had them revealed.
As for necrotizing fasciitis, that requires more than just a bruise, it requires the presence of Group A beta hemolytic streptococcus or similar bacteria. Now, that’s not impossible, of course, since such bacteria are in the environment sometimes, but it could hardly be attributed to the citizen he killed, unless she had somehow gotten access to some weaponized version of such bacteria (I am not aware of such weaponization).
In any case, even if this ICE cube somehow falls into typical “eggshell skull” doctrine, it was still quite clear that the driver was not trying to do any harm to him but to steer in the other direction. It’s just barely conceivable that she might have been considered subject to some CIVIL liability, just for being in a bad location and contributing to the situation that led to him STEPPING WILLFULY in front of her car. It does not merit being shot to death in the middle of the road, which THEN led to her vehicle going off with no living driver and hitting another car. If anyone was harmed by that collision, it would certainly be reasonable to say that this ICE person was the proximate cause, and certainly the DHS should be liable for that property damage, and possibly punitive damages.
The credibility of an unsubstantiated “report” by the DHS and pretty much no one else about his supposed internal bleeding–almost a kind of hearsay–in this situation in which the administration already almost immediately said things that were patently untrue about the interaction, pretty much as soon as it happened, raises the fishiness of an already fishy claim.
These are among the thought processes behind me saying “It smells fishy.”
Peace, Robert. I wasn’t making any comment on the justness of the shooting or who’s to blame for what. I was only indulging in some reductio myself in speculating what evidence a doubting Thomas might need to be convinced that someone really had been injured from being struck by a car. That’s all.
FWIW I have seen streptococcal NF complicating blunt trauma that didn’t appear to have grossly lacerated the skin which is why I brought it up. I’ve also seen it where the patient recalled no local injury at all. I wasn’t making any absurd suggestion of contagion from a few seconds of close contact.
Fair enough. And you’re absolutely right, it doesn’t need a break in the skin. And of course, the relevant bacteria are everywhere. I got a bit overheated regarding this topic, largely because of the way the “higher-ups” were so dismissive of the killing. It’s obviously not on you, and I apologize for being rude.
Doctors have commented on TV that internal bleeding will always result in at least 24 hours in-care under doctor supervision. Jonathon Ross was at the hospital for about 9 hours.
The fact that it took a week for Noem to think this up is also suspicious.
Doesn’t sound “fishy” to me. After years of hearing s*** like this from Trump and his minions, I say it is just another lie from the Trump regime.
I suspect that ICE is counting bruising as internal bleeding. Which technically, it is.
I don’t know enough to have an opinion on Ms. Good’s unfortunate death. But I do have an opinion on the ultimate civic ills of violent, uncontrolled mobs rioting under the guise of protest. Saw it in action in the late 1960’s, in 2020, and on January 6, 2021. It wasn’t just the protest/riot cycle that upended civic culture, it was the public reaction to the triggering event/s and subsequent disorder and its disillusionment with ineffective or misguided governmental responses that became a lasting legacy of anger fueled public responses to perceived injustices. So I don’t hold out much hope for a good outcome in Minnesota’s riots, in the near future anyway. Or as Maxine might more succintly quip to Minnesota’s leaders, “You break it, you buy it, so hand over the dough and take it home.”
PPC(E) (and a few here, and my) lack of explosive hard opinions on either side is unusually rare in this case. Even for our current times this one is EXTREMELY divisive. The undecided middle ground is small.
2 pieces of evidence, in one direction: Allegedly the officer was dragged by a car driven by a fleeing felon, sustaining significant injuries, 6 months before. He’d be a little leery of such situations (though not enough to start shooting one would hope).
Further – Ms. Good’s wife was amping up the drama to a good degree.
undecidedly yours,
D.A.
NYC/FL
“Allegedly the officer was dragged by a car driven by a fleeing felon, sustaining significant injuries, 6 months before. He’d be a little leery of such situations (though not enough to start shooting one would hope).”
Sounds like someone who needs to be on medical leave until they can control themselves.
The video the agent himself took of the incident shows that Good did strike him with her car. I personally don’t think he’s guilty of a crime. If someone accelerates suddenly like she did and strikes you with their car, then it’s reasonable to believe your life is in danger and to act defensively. Also, driving a car with a bunch of pedestrians surrounding it is just reckless behavior that screams disdain for the safety of those pedestrians.
That being said, the more that is coming out about how poorly trained and background-checked these ICE agents are, the scarier they all sound. I get why they are masked, given that they are being threatened, as are their family members. But the Trump government is just going about all this deportation effort the wrong way. The lack of due process before they are deported and the appalling conditions that some of the to-be-deported are housed under is turning many of the people who probably originally supported the deportation effort against it. I support deporting people here illegally, but tackling Door Dash drivers off of bikes, seizing unsuspecting preschool teachers, and throwing them into warehouses to sleep on freezing floors is not the right way to go about it. Most people are OK with deporting criminals. Why not just start there first?
Good did not suddenly accelerate-until she was dead! While she was alive she was carefully trying to angle away from Ross. Ross provoked this by walking in front of her car ( in contravention of standard police training) with his gun drawn, hoping for a vehicle tap so he could kill her. Remember he called her corpse a fxxxing xitch.
Watch Ross’s video again. She’s backing up just as he’s stepping in front of the SUV. Then she drives forward, and we hear what sounds like impact as Ross says “Whoa!”
It all happens very quickly.
Yes, she deliberately accelerated. That much is clear.
It seems pretty clear from other angles that she was reacting to the assault by the other masked armed unidentified people trying to drag her out of the car that she was trying to get away. You can tell by the way she moves the wheel what she was doing. It did happen very quickly. That officer has amazing reaction time or was prepared to do exactly what he did with such precision. Some premeditation required.
Ross apparently has a history of standing in front of cars
In fact, as the videos show, Good hit the accelerator hard enough to spin the front tires before any shots were fired.
How do you know there is lack of due process, Brooke? Do you know what due process is for an administrative deportation? Do you believe that aliens arrested by ICE are being put on planes and flown out of the country with none of the bureaucratic oversight that US law requires? Most people arrested for anything are “unsuspecting”. You don’t tip off a suspect and let him run just because you enjoy a chase.
What do you mean by a criminal? It’s quite probable that bad people you don’t want in your country have nonetheless not yet been convicted of a crime. You can deport them administratively and expeditiously just because they are illegal aliens instead of buggering up the criminal justice system with them. (In Canada, some good-hearted judges actually acquit aliens they recognize are guilty of serious crimes, or give them absolute discharges, in order that their brush with the law won’t derail their immigration journey.) I submit that there are lots of aliens in sanctuary cities causing trouble that no one has been able to bring to justice. ICE should perhaps concentrate on getting these guys first, if it knows who they are, but still most won’t actually have criminal convictions registered against them in America, just because most criminals don’t get caught. And, grimly, tackling Door Dash drivers off their bikes is pour encourager les autres back home not to come here.
I’m really trying to figure out just what it is that people who say they don’t agree with Open Borders nonetheless find so challenging about the Administration’s enforcement policy. Is it that you don’t like the law? Or is that you think the law should be enforced differently? Or that you don’t agree with Open Borders but still don’t think ICE should try diligently to find deeply embedded illegal aliens and send them home if it makes anyone uncomfortable? (By “you” I don’t mean you personally, but Americans generally, including the people trying to disrupt ICE activities to the point of “unarresting” aliens they have “kidnapped.” This is really bizarre.)
Who is Brooke? You seem to be responding to my comment. By due process I mean honoring the fact that some of the people being deported were in the process of getting refugee status. Yet they were still deported. Some were not convicted criminals yet were sent to CECOT. They should have not been sent there without a conviction or hearing first!
Look, I support deporting illegal immigrants, as does most of the American public. But causing accidents and injuries by tackling people in traffic on motorbikes is reckless. Many of these latest ICE actions seem haphazard and poorly planned, and even cruel. Keeping people in inhumane conditions pending deportation is also unacceptable. That’s exactly the type of thing that turns the public against what was something most Americans originally wanted.
“ Do you believe that aliens arrested by ICE are being put on planes and flown out of the country with none of the bureaucratic oversight that US law requires?”
No, they’re being housed like cattle first. But then, yes. The Trump administration routinely doesn’t follow the law or provide much oversight.
Sorry, got lost in the nested comments. I was replying to you and called you Brooke by mistake. Apologies.
The ones sent to CECOT were sent there because their country of citizenship, Venezuela, wouldn’t accept them back, as it’s supposed to under the international law we all hold so sacred. The Supreme Court ruled that the Administration was legally permitted to send them to any willing third country under whatever terms it could negotiate with that third country. In this case, the deal was CECOT. So there’s your due process, as per your Supreme Court. Your opinion that they should have been put on trial in the U.S. first for crimes alleged to have been committed in Venezuela is just your opinion.
I have no opinion about the wisdom or organizational quality of ICE efforts. Part of the challenge, as others have noted, is that Minnesota won’t dispatch its municipal police to assist with control of the scene as they would for a George Floyd riot, so ICE is left to improvise. C’est la vie.
Re the lack of due process, ISTM that’s part of the overall purpose. Due process, science, non-alternative facts, and other reality-based items are hindrances to authoritarians. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
As I said to Brooke, please tell me what due process is for deportation of illegal aliens, and tell me in what ways it is being denied. It’s an administrative remedy [Edit: with no finding of guilt], not a criminal proceeding that denies life, liberty or property, remember. So due process is going to be less demanding than giving someone, even an alien, a ticket for jaywalking, the fine for which deprives him of property. Deportation deprives him of nothing. He’s a free man with all his property intact when he gets home.
We foreigners cross the U.S. border as foreigners — you citizens never do –, many times in our lives in the case of Canadians and most of us as we grow up have considered at one time or another seeking to immigrate. Easy it’s not. We know that aliens like us are welcome in the U.S., as in any foreign country, only as long as we behave ourselves. We know we have no right whatsoever to stay there if you are determined to send us home.
That’s ‘you’ the government, which is said to be a rule of law, including various due processes for arrest, application of administrative regulations, etc. etc. Bolton usw. talked about dismantling (“deconstructing”??) the “administrative state”. Guess what.
Exactly. If there’s a person in front of your car and you press the accelerator, you’re committing a violent crime.
That view would disqualify someone from serving on a jury in her trial, not that I expect there’ll be one. A jury, the ‘trier of fact’, is expected to actually consider all (and only) the evidence provided in the trial. At least that’s what I was told as a member of a jury pool.
“I Joined ICE Watch”
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-joined-ice-watch
I don’t like what I saw in the videos. It may have been preventable, if the officer stepped out of the way and let Good pass. But he may have been afraid for his life and may have fired in what he thought was self defense. Firing two more shots, as the car passed by him, may not seem to be self-defense, but he may have been so frightened that he acted irrationally. Good put herself in a bad spot, but losing her life was too high a price to pay for her transgression. I don’t know who was at fault and it will be difficult to know. Many factors were at play.
Now the question to me is whether the unrest will spread and become violent. Will the protests be taken over by professional agitators, potentially making things worse? Will the actions of city and state officials encourage protestors to resist ICE, potentially making things worse? Will ICE and the administration try to de-escalate the situation, or will they double-down and make things worse. I’m concerned that we’re at a standoff. My hope is that someone blinks and steps it down a notch.
We often hear claims of “professional agitators” or “paid protestors”. I have yet to see anyone come forward with a receipt or pay stub for being a paid protestor.
Nate Friedman’s YouTube channel has interviews with protestors and their backgrounds :
https://youtube.com/@natefriedman?si=q57DqT2VpomxxwIt
See my comment above. I doubt Ross was afraid for his life. Do you remember how Rumeysa Ozturk of Tufts University was snatched off the street? It is ICE that are the shit disturbers.
And they’re the paid ones.
Anthony Davis in his The Five Minute News podcast had a piece comparing the number of fatal police shootings in the US last year (just under 1000) with the numbers in European countries – virtually (and often actually) none at all. In the UK most police aren’t armed, so this simply wouldn’t have happened. I guess the argument in the US is that law enforcement officers need to be armed because they might be dealing with armed civilians – another unfortunate consequence of America’s gun culture, in my view.
Davis also suggests that law enforcement training is partly to blame as they are apparently taught to view deadly force as another tool in their toolkit rather than an absolute last resort.
Most criminals in the USA are armed with guns. When people with guns threaten others (i.e. school shootings, etc.) who are you going to call to stop them? People armed with guns.
Please see my post at 16 (in moderation at the moment). The ICE officer violated several DHS use-of-force policies. Some (including people I know well) are claiming he followed his training. This claim amounts to the claim that ICE trained him to violate its policies. Nonsense.
Except in the very few live-shooter scenarios, the police cannot protect you from an assailant armed with a gun. They can only gather evidence and attempt to apprehend and charge the perpetrator.
Short of a ban on firearms and a sweeping search for existing ones (the 2A fanatics’ nightmare fantasy) police will need firearms in the USA. This is not permitted under the US constitution. And an amendment to change the Constitution is never going to happen (at least not in my or my son’s lifetime).
Here’s a summary of the DHS use-of-force policies that apply:
Key ICE/DHS Use-of-Force Policies:
Approaching Vehicles: ICE OFFICERS ARE TRAINED TO NEVER APPROACH A VEHICLE FROM THE FRONT and instead to use a “tactical L” or 90-degree angle position to minimize risk of injury. OFFICERS ARE EXPECTED TO MOVE OUT OF THE PATH OF A MOVING VEHICLE, IF POSSIBLE, as intentionally placing oneself in danger “UNDERMINES THE CLAIM THE DEADLY FORCE WAS NECESSARY”. [The shooter violated this policy]
Firing at Moving Vehicles: ICE/DHS policy generally PROHIBITS OFFICERS FROM DISCHARGING FIREARMS AT A MOVING VEHICLE SOLELY TO DISABLE IT OR PREVENT A SUSPECT’S ESCAPE [Renee Good was not a suspect in any crime anyway]. An exception is made only if the occupants of the vehicle are threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle, or if the vehicle itself is being used as a deadly weapon and NO OTHER REASONABLE MEANS OF DEFENSE (INCLUDING MOVING OUT OF THE WAY) EXISTS. [The shooter violated this policy]
Use of Force Justification: The use of deadly force is permitted only when an officer has a reasonable belief that a subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Force must be objectively reasonable and USED ONLY WHEN NO REASONABLY EFFECTIVE, SAFE, AND FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXISTS. [The shooter violated this policy: There was an alternative: He should have followed the above two policies]
[My emphasis throughout]
I’m no arms expert, but perhaps if domestic law enforcement were to only shoot rubber bullets, those 1000 lives lost last year could have been saved.
Sometimes “non-lethal” munitions are used. But they don’t help when you are in immediate threat of being killed by a shooter.
“those 1000 lives lost last year could have been saved” That is a very large assumption about a large number of cases that will vary dramatically. How many police officers would have to die to make that claim a reality?
In the good old US of A, every year 50 – 60 police officers are killed by gunfire in the line of duty. We’re also blessed by our 2nd amendment in that nearly 80% of all felonious killing is done by firearms.
Rubber bullets hurt, but they are no match against real guns.
Sorry I posted to the top thread in error. It was intended as a reply to Gareth Price’s comment. If rubber bullets “hurt,” the issue becomes whether they hurt sufficiently to incapacitate a potential shooter. I don’t know.
The large majority (~90%) of those 1000 people shot by police were armed, and for the most part these were likely justified shootings. About 55% with guns, 20% with knives, 5% with vehicles, 3% with toy guns, etc. (statists.com).
IS there going to be a formal investigation by the FBI, or is that being blocked somehow? Is there going to be a formal state investigation?
To me, those are the most important things. That is how such issues are supposed to be handled.
Then, degree of guilt or innocence pivots on evidence. Charges are leveled if the evidence indicates some degree of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. And sometimes the guilty allowed to go free for lack of sufficient evidence, even if there is some evidence.
Given that the AG and the President, immediately after the incident, declared that the shooting was justified and that the victim was a domestic terrorist, it seems very unlikely that there will be any honest federal investigation, and the state is being blocked from their own investigation.
As I understand it, Mark, the DOJ decided not to investigate his actions, and also decided to keep impede local authorities from doing so. Some news reports say this is why many career DOJ prosecutors in Minn. and Washington have resigned over the last two days.
Saturday night massacre, redux:
Federal prosecutors resign because the feds want to investigate Good’s wife, not the shooter:
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/federal-prosecutors-minnesota-resign-joe-thompson/
Civil right division prosecutors resign:
https://www.ms.now/news/doj-civil-rights-division-officials-quit-harmeet-dhillon
And more coverup:
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5687963-doj-not-investigating-renee-good-shooting/
That was fast!:
https://www.wesh.com/article/tensions-in-minneapolis-rise-doj-decides-against-charges-in-renee-good-shooting/69995762
The recent announcement of the resignation of 4 or 5 US attorneys in Minnesota is very concerning. There appears to be a cover up and a distraction agenda going on. This is another indication that the rule of law in the United States is undergoing a significant change.
Good prosecutors prosecute cases, not people. From the pardon of the January 6 rioters, the immunity granted to the President of the United States, to the pardon of drug lords to white collar convicted criminals, it’s becoming clear that if you are a MAGA supporter you can get away with anything. If not, well, you are one of the “garbage” that needs to be dealt with by the MAGA forces.
Should the evidence show that the ICE shooter is culpable at some level in this encounter and is prosecuted he will no doubt be pardoned. (As I understand it – and I am no expert in this area and may be wrong – even if the ICE agent is charged in state court for a state crime, the case can apparently be moved to federal court since he is a federal officer. Thus he may even be pardoned of a state charge by the President, according to one analyst I heard.)
In any event, it seems clear that there will never be an investigation into this matter that pursues the facts and applies the law “without fear nor favor.” The United States is transitioning from a “Shining City on a Hill” to a Snake Infested Polluted Swamp.
From Sahan Journal on whether the state of Minnesota will be able to investigate:
https://sahanjournal.com/public-safety/ice-shooting-minneapolis-renee-good-state-investigation-charges/
I don’t understand walking in front of car AND gun in hand. If perceived danger justified gun in hand then don’t walk in front of car. If safe to walk in front of car, then no need for gun. At the very least seems like poor judgment that led to death.
There is a simple treatment for Weltschmerz stop watching TV news If you need to know what’s happening read a newspaper and limit how much time you spend with it. Reading is less traumatic than watching and it works.
Agreed. If I miss any really bad news, friends will call it to my attention.
Obama managed to deport around 3 million illegal immigrants – concentrating on those who had criminal records either in the US or elsewhere. In comparison Trump’s policy (in his first term and thus far) is much less effective at deporting criminals, much more expensive (in terms of dollars and lives lost) and much more divisive and discriminatory (in terms of the number of black and brown US citizens and legal residents detained).
I’d add disruptive and damaging to the list.
Peter Morero,
There are not Trump deportations. These are Stephan Miller deportations.
I have said here before, I have had more hazardous interactions with vehicles in grocery store parking lots, and in about a third, the person driving away seemed not to have even noticed they put me in possible danger.
That said, I hope this horrible incident is honestly and truthfully looked into.
I think this analysis from Bellingcat is good:
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2026/01/13/analysing-footage-of-minneapolis-ice-shooting/
They have synchronized all available videos and also plotted the position of key persons. I think it is very clear that Good intended to steer clear of the guy who ended up shooting her: First, she backed up a bit with the wheel hard left, to swing the front of the car to the right. Then she straightened the wheels, started turning them right while beginning to drive forward. She was likely distracted and rushed by the ICE agent reaching in through the side window.
You think that Ross could clearly see the position of the tires and be able to evaluate, that Good was trying to steer clear of the car?
Ross’ video shows, that her backing up brought him in front of the car. He might have been able to see Good working the wheel and maybe infer she was steering clear of him. But that demands a whole lot from a regular human and I’m pretty sure neither you or me would have picked up on this in this situation.
Again, the second and third shots were made after it was clear she was steering away from him (and was moving in that direction; no need to see the tires) and after the front of the car had passed him. In fact he approached the car and almost reached into the open window to take those shots into her head at point-blank range..
She didn’t stop when required to do so and she hit him with her car. Her death could be called suicide by cop. Unfortunately, that happens.
FX Kober
Have your bothered to look at the freeze frames of Ross stepping away from the front, stepping to the side and giving her two in the head from the side, through the open driver-side window yet? When we debated a few days ago, your denied this happened.
Jerry has posted the freeze frames. Have you looked at them yet? Your arguments should at least acknowledge Ross was to the side of the car, looking in when he fired the kill shots.
What does all this matter? Particularly why do you need to convince FXK to change his mind? Neither of you is going to be solicited as an expert and neither of you is going to be on the jury, if there ever even is a jury. My personal view is that the fatal shots were fired by a second gunman from behind the icy knoll you can just make out in some of the video frames. You’ll think I’m making light of this tragedy but my point is that my theory is as good as anyone else’s in terms of impact on the adjudication.
I would dearly love for this to be the last comment but I’m not holding my breath.
I’m not trying to convince FX to change his mind. I’m just pointing out how closed his mind already is.
That’s an odd comment Leslie. I guess it means you cannot actually refute the evidence that at least the last two shots were not self-defense. So you take this route.
I’d say that the ICE officer basically executed Good. She was interfering with them and probably deserved to be arrested for that, but she was resisting, which was infuriating to the one who placed himself in front of her car (but not too much)… He was so fast on the draw! (almost like he was ready to kill that “f-ing bitch.”)
Good was at fault in the same sense that women who are out alone at night and are raped are at fault.
I fall into the camp of thinking him guilty myself, but “executed” is taking it too far in my opinion. I’d say he is at least guilty of reckless disregard for everyone’s safety, including his own and his fellow ICE officer’s. Did he intend to kill her? I don’t think we can rule that out, but that is more guesswork. In the heat of the moment, that is possible, but proving it is near impossible.
In law, a person is generally held to “intend” the normal and foreseeable results of their actions. Multiple shots at close range by a (presumably) trained pistol shooter….
Deliberately interfering with law enforcement actions of officers is hardly comparable to a woman walking alone at night.
1) He didn’t place himself in front of the car.
2) Execution means full control over the situation in which you kill. Does being hit by a car the target of the execution is driving look like full control over the situation to you?
3) His derogatory comment was made before he knew if his shots had connected.
1) He did. Several videos clearly show that.
2) In every way that matters, he was in control. He could have not engaged, and in fact that is what he should have done per ICE’s own policies. Instead he chose to pull his gun before he could reasonably have said to be in any danger, and shot her three times.
3) Two of the shots were at point blank range through the open driver’s side window. It is very highly improbable that he did not know that his shots had connected. So improbable as to be unreasonable to assume so.
He drew his weapon and stepped in front of the vehicle at the very moment that it started to move forward. He then stepped back, leaned forward towards the vehicle, over the front 1/4 panel, to fire the first shot through the windscreen, low and close to the A-pillar. He then fired two more shots at near point blank range through the driver’s side window as the car moved forward, curving to the right.
I agree. It wasn’t self defense. He wanted to shoot her, and he did. The only other thing that could make sense to me is that, for whatever reasons, he was seriously incompetent and should not have been on duty.
I’ve watched several of the videos, several times. My provisional opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Ross did not “execute” Good, and Good did not intend to hurt Ross. Many on the right and the left are pushing the most dramatic and hyperbolic narratives of the incident, attributing the worst of ill-intent to the actor on the other side. All that does is drown the signal out with noise.
I think Good and her wife were deliberately obstructing law officers and behaving stupidly.
I also think Good moved forward, unexpectedly from Ross’s position, and may have hit him. I believe he was afraid. Should he have been in front of the car at all? Maybe not. Did he pull the trigger in anger rather than fear for his actual life? I don’t know.
Most sensible comment on this I’ve read so far. Thank you.
It appears that the 2nd and 3rd shots from the side of the vehicle could be reasonably called ‘in anger’ since the ICE agent was now out of imminent danger. The possible mitigating circumstance there is that this agent had been dragged 100ft by a fleeing car just a few month prior, assuming PTSD is a defense.
Yeah but all three shots were fired in less than one second. I doubt that’s enough time to form a conscious decision.
But after the front passed him, he had enough time to make a conscious decision to push his gun almost into the car, from the side, to close the distance between his gun and her head.
My last comment here, Da Rulz..
Protests in Minnesota: I wonder how much this is really Minneapolis as opposed to the centrist and right-leaning areas outside MSP.
Right to protest: This does not include “right” to interfere with lawful legal proceedings.
Lack of cooperation: As Dr. B pointed out, the jurisdictions in which state and local law enforcement are supporting ICE in carrying out its lawful duties have had far fewer problems. State and local law enforcement need to do the crowd control for which they are better trained; ICE needs to apprehend.
Cooperation should work both ways. A state that refuses to cooperate with enforcement of federal law now wants the federal officials to cooperate with a state investigation into a federal officer.
We should focus on criminals: Does that mean MN and other blue states should start notifying ICE and transferring into their custody the thousands who have been charged with or convicted of crimes—to include violent offenders—rather than releasing them into the public?
Nobody is above the law. Except those whose violations we choose to ignore. This is a bipartisan plague.
Obama managed to deport 3 million with no problem: Obama cooked the books. Most of those people were detained and then removed shortly after crossing the border. Border removals are a different matter from deportations.
Open the border. Facilitate dispersal of millions across the nation. Support imported illegal aliens with state and federal funds. Moralize about the “racism” of those who object. Protest—or interfere with—any attempt to reverse the situation. Campaign on granting amnesty to all the people you let across. Let them vote—some are advocating that illegal aliens be granted voting rights even before becoming citizens.
I am quite forgiving of those who sense more here than simply humanitarianism run amok.
Below is a transcript of a radio address to the nation by that well-known racist and MAGA supporter: President Bill Clinton. It is instructive to weigh his position in 1995 against that of the Democratic Party today—on this, as on so many other issues.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/the-presidents-radio-address-317
With the benefit of multiple videos, slow motion and integration of multiple views I believe the officer’s action did not meet the requirement for use of deadly force to fire on a fleeing vehicle. But an indictment of a officer for such a use of force is unlikely precisely because there is no consensus the action was reckless. Surely an investigation is warranted, evidenced by the resignation of federal DAs. The more important observation that is obscured by the situation on the ground is the inflammatory reactions of politicians on both sides. Chicago with a similarly left wing local government has done a better job de-escalating a difficult circumstance. A second observation is the power of confirmation bias. I’m sure most who condemn this shooting would not condemn Ashli Babbitt’s and conversely.
Remember when political leaders used to try and keep people calm?
Ashli Babbitt’s death was under very different circumstances and was clearly justified. Unfortunate, tragic even, but justified.
2nd observation bias is a fact, according to polling..
A nit re deliberate acts of manslaughter or even murder — AIUI the key difference between the two is intent (or severe negligence, or deemed intent, or …), so “deliberate manslaughter” seems an oxymoron. IANAL.
For murder, the perpetrator must have deliberately applied the force AND either had the intent to kill or was negligent as to the likelihood that death would result. I think this is what you meant by “deemed intent”. This means that shooting someone in the head or torso, who dies, would not allow you to claim that you didn’t intend to kill him, only to wound him. If you stabbed him in the arm, and he got gangrene and died, you might get manslaughter. (In Canada we don’t distinguish between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. All unlawful homicide that is not murder is manslaughter, whether it was a deliberate assault or careless use of a firearm. So we could talk nonoxymoronically about “deliberate manslaughter” although we don’t in practice.)
I pick this nit only to point out that what you say means that in justifying any fatal police shooting, and even many that aren’t, through good luck of the victim, we are justifying the officer’s deliberate or “deemed” intent to kill. That’s why multiple shots into the centre of mass stemming from an initial justification to shoot don’t usually degrade the officer’s entitlement to have the entire shooting considered justified. That’s also why we have to be so careful in deciding that the first shot was justified as it ends up justifying them all.
Of course all the facts matter, which none of us have, nor do we have the authority to decide what they mean. We’re all jus’ spitballin’ here.
Seems clear that a lot of Dems are in favor of open borders and defunding ICE. I’m not sure those are winning positions.
But somehow Obama managed to deport more illegal aliens than Trump without selectively invading cities or shooting US citizens.
Obama got those numbers mainly by getting Border Force to turn noncitizens back at the border, from what I understand.
This is what I saw in three videos:
1) Good turned her steering wheel away from the ICE officer as she slowly accelerated.
2) Her wheels were turning away from the officer as she pulled away.
3) She clipped the officer (his POV camera).
The danger/violence in hindsight was clearly disproportionate.
I won’t speak to the intents of Good and the ICE officer, as this is pure conjecture.
Some of the comments in this discussion worry me.
In hindsight is important here. Do you think that the shooter was able to see the orientation of the front wheels?
Also, watch the video footage (e.g. here https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2026/01/13/analysing-footage-of-minneapolis-ice-shooting/ ):
Do you really think “slowly accelerated” is the correct term? She picked up plenty speed real quick if you look for it.
She picked up speed because she was dead/dying and, as a response to her brains being blown out, her leg extended and her foot (that was already on the gas pedal) continued to press down. Ross caused a severe danger to the public with his actions.
I hesitate to use the word “should”, but if the ICE agent was not so close to the vehicle, perhaps he might have been able to see the orientation of the wheels.
Regardless … Good was not aiming for the agent. She made an error of judgement for which she paid with her life. Of course, the agent is a product of his experiences, politics, training, etc. We are all products of an unfolding universe.
So if you are looking to play the blame game, there is a lot places to look.
Yes, the shooter could see her turning the wheel. You can know this because you too can see how she is turning the wheel. Watch the video he took.
I initially thought the same as you. He could not have seen wheels being turned under the car. But then I saw his own video.
There are claims that the ICE officers told her to exit the vehicle as if in a normal traffic stop where such an order is legal only after a reasonable lawful traffic stop.
These ICE agents jumped out of their car, rushed up to her door, one screaming get out of the fucking car while grabbing the car, reaching into the car and grabbing at her. That is not proper policing even if they have such power. They are masked armed people who did not identify themselves rushing at her. It is perfectly reasonable that she panicked and wanted to get out of there.
Which also means it wasn’t lawful fleeing or lawful anything.
And that doesn’t address the poor behavior of the ICE who shot her as she was trying to get away. He could and actually did step out of the way as he recorded with his phone and drew and fired his gun, 2 shots of which were when he was well clear of the vehicle.
Some claim the officer is justified because of fight flight response and some actions become automatic thus justifying the initial shot and 2 more. Well the same should apply to Goods who was reacting in panic created by ICE.
I think the officer shot because he was angry not because he was in fear. There should be a full impartial investigation. How to make it impartial is tricky.
As regards “a reasonable lawful traffic stop,” please feel free to include and address Goode’s turning her vehicle perpendicular to the flow of traffic and obstructing ICE vehicles. Would Goode’s doing so not reasonably prompt “a reasonable lawful traffic stop”?
“Drive baby, drive!” her partner reportedly said. Have I accurately read elsewhere that her partner stated that she regretted thusly encouraging her?
Video from shortly before the shooting shows her and her partner taunting the ICE officers, so it’s clear she knew who they were. She wanted to get away to avoid arrest (and avoid complying with “get out of the car”), not because she panicked when approached by unknown masked men.
As a visitor to the US about 40 years ago, I was advised that if you are driving in the States, and are stopped by a law enforcement officer, you should do exactly what they say and not make any false moves as, if you do, you risk being shot, because all US law enforcement officers carry firearms. Is this not widely known in the US itself, or are some ICE protesters just trying to provoke predictable reactions and create martyrs for what is a rather ignoble cause?
Many on the woke left regard themselves as so morally in the right that they’re entitled to act how they like and think they should have impunity. They’re also so used to being mollycoddled in “safe space” bubbles that they can’t judge actual danger. The worst outcome they can conceive of is that they might get misgendered.
An ex FBI agent provides the best analysis so far of the Renee Good shooting:
https://asharangappa.substack.com/p/friday-round-up-1926
She analyses the rules of firearm use in relation to vehicles, the video evidence and concludes that Ross did not use his firearm in “self-defense”.
The shooting was “anticipatory” and not “reactive”. The anticipation is showing that his going for the gun was not a response to her accelerating the vehicle, he was already reaching for it.
BTW- FBI firearms training is second to none, which she describes in the article. G. Gordon Liddy described the same intensive FBI training in his autobiography “Will”.)
For what it is worth, were I on the jury, I don’t think I would convict the ICE officer based on anything I have seen.
Were I the officer’s supervisor, I would put him on leave for counseling and a psychological evaluation which would be the basis for future employment.
Were I advising Good, my advice would be to always submit to authority. If they are wrong, we can work that out later. Don’t make your life depend on a stranger’s snap judgement.
For those wanting to convict and sentence the officer, I am wondering how fast and how much contact would be sufficient for the officer to feel his life was in danger?
And do you think there is any room for alternative opinions?
Would your opinion change if the officer were less mobile and could not get out of the way?
Regarding counseling Good, she had various commands shouted at her including “Get out of the car” and “Get out of here,” as in get the vehicle out of the way. Which command should she have complied with?
Should a civilian with no training be expected to behave rationally or in an expected way in such a tense situation? Unlike the federal ICE agents who presumably have lots of training. And yet they are the ones that intentionally behave as if every interaction they have with civilians is like a raid in downtown Fallujah. Exactly the opposite of how they should behave because doing so dramatically increases the chances of the untrained civilians doing unexpected, even irrational things because they are confused and scared.
If the goal is to successfully catch the presumed bad guys with the lowest risk to your agents, and the untrained public, behaving as ICE does is the stupidest thing they could do.
Unless successfully catching bad guys with the lowest risk to themselves and untrained civilians isn’t really their goal.
Reasonably trained agents with professional, ethical, attitudes could have dealt with this situation, routinely, trivially, without anyone getting hurt.
I am depressed by how many people seem to think that it is okay to require unquestioned obedience to law enforcement no matter the circumstances, or they are justified in anything they do to you, including killing you. I’d be hard pressed to come up with anything more un-American than that attitude.
I agree 100% with your last sentence
My starting place is that people make mistakes and there is no way to know if you are dealing with the ideal officer you describe.
Anytime you deal with an armed individual, there is a non-zero chance you will get shot.
I neither advocate blind obedience, nor justify the officer’s actions. I do advocate surviving the encounter so you can make a difference later. Disobeying is reasonable if there is a potential to help but Good had zero chance of doing anything other than increasing her own risk. That is not a good trade in my book. Hence my advice.
To answer your question, what she should obey, the first instruction she hears. That is how you stay alive and make a difference later.
And “live to fight another day” seems the most American thing on the planet if I recall my Revolutionary War history correctly.
How did “crybaby liberal snowflakes” become “dangerous violent radical leftist enemies of the state” so fast?
It is disturbing to see so many people blaming the agitation and violence on protestors rather than on ICE. There is no reason for ICE to be there in the first place, or for ICE to deploy with a heavy-handed military presence. The surge in ICE was originally claimed to be a response to so-called “fraud” by immigrant communities, but fraud could have been investigated with lawyers and accountants, not with guns and armor. The guns and armor clearly appear to be some kind of “retribution” tactic against a blue city in a blue state. Meanwhile there are several well-documented cases of aggressive arrests targeting people based on their skin color or manner of dress. Of COURSE this militarized police presence will draw protests, as it should. To the extent these protests have led to violence, the appear to be the result of ICE escalating rather than deescalating. If ICE goes away peace will return.
As for the Renee Good shooting, the Bellingcat video shows the killer drawing his gun just after the car has finished backing up, clearly showing the intent of the driver to get away (as some police had instructed her to do, but the killer makes no move to step away from the front of the vehicle as you might expect him to do if he feared for his own safety. Then as he aims he steps toward the car, not to the side. Other commentators emphasized the many ways in which this behavior violates rules for use of firearms by law enforcement. Did he get a boo-boo as the car brushed past him? Maybe, but he shows no sign of distress as he strides down the road toward her crashed car, and then back to his car to flee the scene, with no interest in participating in any investigation.
No country in the world has created the bureaucratic infrastructure to keep up with increasing demand for immigration, whether legal or illegal. The USA could get rid of the Department of Education and reallocate all staff to work in Immigration control, processing paperwork, etc. Probably still would not have enough staff to meet demand.
At this point, I fear our discussion misses the forest for the trees.