taco belle on X - "Even local police officers ask you to step out of your vehicle — they cannot and do not simply grab your door handle and start trying to open your door with their weapons out ICE agents have far more limited legal jurisdiction than a regular cop. Unless she was believed to be harboring an undocumented person in her car, they have no right to search her vehicle. She also wasn’t obstructing traffic; she was waving cars through. And lethal force is only justified when it is the only available option. He could, and did, easily move out of the way. He stood in front of it in the first place, with his phone and his gun out, while she was backing up, and shot her twice after she was fully past him; even if that first shot can be justified, the latter two cannot according to plenty of legal precedent, bc he was no longer in danger. Denying her medical attention afterwards is also illegal and even implicates all other agents at the scene in her death."
memetic_sisyphus on X - "All of this is false.
1) Pennsylvania v. Mimms (434 U.S. 106, 1977) ruled cops are allowed to ask you to step out of your vehicle. This is a lawful order and if you refuse it they are able to use force to remove you from your vehicle.
2) ICE agents have the ability to arrest a citizen for a crime if they have reason to suspect them of said crime IAW 8 CFR § 287.8 - Standards for enforcement activities section (c). In this case impeding the road so ICE officers could not complete their mission.
3) In Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U.S. 194 (2004) a police officer attempted to remove a suspect from a car unsuccessfully, the suspect started to drive away and she shot into the drivers window hitting him in the back of the head killing him. This was ruled reasonable use of force because she suspected he was driving towards fellow officers. So not only can an officer in front of a vehicle shoot you for driving at them, officers around the vehicle can also shoot you. This has been established in numerous cases: YOU CAN NOT DRIVE YOUR CAR AT OFFICERS."
John Carney on X - "This is just about as bad of a misstatement of the law as you could make. First of of all, the standard is not “literally no possible alternatives exist.” It’s whether the use of force was objectively reasonable given the threat. Second, the threat threshold is not “an officer would surely have been killed.” The usual formulation is probable cause / reasonable belief that the person posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others. Third, this notion that the officer should have done some movie move like shooting the tires, firing warning shot, or shooting to just injure is nonsense. Warning shots are generally prohibited as reckless. Shooting itself is the use of lethal force. Fourth, it’s incorrect that we shouldn’t take into account the panic an officer would feel when a car accelerates at him. The law explicitly accounts for “split-second judgments” in “circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” The reasonableness standard incorporates this reality. Fifth, if someone is talking about “rule of engagement” in a law enforcement context, they are likely a pretend lawyer. This is military terminology, not a civilian law enforcement standard. Law enforcement operates under use of force policies, but the constitutional floor is objective reasonableness.
TL;DR: Riedel’s framing suggests criminal liability requires proving the officer had safe alternatives, when the actual question is whether the officer’s belief that deadly force was necessary was objectively reasonable under the totality of circumstances."
Left wing logic: you need to look at the direction of the tires and risk being run over before shooting
James Lindsay, anti-Communist on X - "Minnesota has provided us with yet another good example of the Communist and radical principle of "your target's reaction is your real action," which is a key strategic tactic for them. For many months, ICE and other federal law enforcement, not to mention Trump himself, have been made out to be the kinds of tyrants that have to be stopped at almost any cost, including by reckless citizen actions, like obstructing law enforcement, resisting arrest, throwing things at police, etc. All of it is framed out in ridiculous false narratives designed to "come true" at the moment of crisis, at which point they will seize control of the narrative to drive specific, pre-planned action. In this case, the false narratives are not just about the status of federal law enforcement and ICE but also about their alleged unwillingness to work with or coordinate with local and state police who have, behind the scenes, been ordered to be non-compliant, if not softly antagonistic. This is called "Operational Preparation of the Environment" in the unrestricted or political warfare environment in which radicals today do their work. The model they're using is called "reflexivity" and is George Soros's "shoelace dialectic" (his terms) as a theory of change. The goal was always to create antagonistic situations between citizens, who can be framed as fighting a noble anti-oppression cause, and ICE, who can be framed as engaging in unwelcome oppression. By ordering local and state police to be uncooperative, not only do the operations fall more heavily on federal law enforcement, but also several other things are achieved. For examples,
a) Locals can be led to believe federal law enforcement is operating outside of the bounds of the more local law and against the wishes of their state/locality, which they are led to believe holds sovereignty;
b) This generates a conflict between the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution and local and state law enforcement that citizens are led to believe renders the federal LEOs out of line;
c) Local and state police aren't usually openly antagonistic, therefore creating an illusion of resistance to the feds that they cannot actually fulfill because of their roles, shifting responsibility onto (activist) citizens;
d) Circumstances where local citizens are believed to be on the side of the rightful law against oppressive alien law (and may expect diminished or no consequences for resisting the "alien" law, even though it is actually supreme).
There are more we could think of, I'm sure, but a key point is that the leadership in states like Minnesota (and California, etc.) know they're creating this powder keg of citizen versus federal law enforcement (here: ICE) while spreading various agitating narratives like about fascism, "protecting communities and neighbors," etc. They are the primary willful bad actors in this situation, together with some professional and other paid agitators who take things to the next level on the streets. The goal is to get citizens to obstruct and even threaten or attack ICE, which in effect creates a decision dilemma for ICE/federal law enforcement. Either the feds can stand down and thus negate the Supremacy Clause and fail to do their jobs, or they can act within their authority and seek to arrest and detail the people obstructing their lawful mandate that the states are resisting less directly and more through engineered fuckery (for lack of a better word). Once that happens enough times, statistics kind of take over. Some proportion of those antagonistic encounters will go sideways. Eventually, as happened yesterday, you'll find a federal law enforcement (ICE) agent do something, either unreasonably or reasonably with sufficient ambiguity (as here), to frame it as an illegitimate overreaction and initiate the reflexive campaign on what looks like firm footing. Soros's reflexivity dialectic (his word for it) works by generating the conditions for chaos and then placing down "guideposts" through the chaos once it arises. He says that himself in The Alchemy of Finance (1992) in the first chapter. The goal is to generate chaotic environments in which "historical change" (his term) can occur and then to shape the outcome of that change when it arrives by leading people to believe certain things about the chaotic environment they're in that gets them to take specific actions they wouldn't otherwise take. In this case, the points of the reflexive campaign are really obvious because they keep saying them over and over and over: get ICE out of Minnesota (and thus protect their rampant fraud racket) and impeach Secretary Noem (take down a political rival so they can demand a more compliant replacement). Classic Bolshevik moves using Soros's media-based reflexive dialectic as the mechanism. Further, as Governor Tim Walz made clear, he's willing to try to induce a profound crisis by naming Minnesota as being "at war" with the federal government and threatening to attempt to deploy the National Guard against federal law enforcement (in violation of their Constitutional oath), which creates a constitutional crisis and is, frankly, direct insurrection he should be prosecuted for. This puts the Trump Administration in a similar, higher decision dilemma: deal with Walz on these terms and trigger a huge falsely justified reaction on the Left or let him get away with what amounts to literal insurrection to avoid that trap. We called this same dilemma the "Trump Trap" back in 2020, but the stakes are actually higher now, even though the situation isn't as heated.
So, there's the Minnesota ICE Floyd psyop in a nutshell. They've used the reaction of the ICE officer (shooting a woman he believed for good reason was posing an imminent threat) to justify not just this campaign but the direct actions in the streets (which were also coordinated, funded, and ready to be activated in the same way the National Guard is on standby), and with a certain population, most of whom lean Left, it will work. That's what's happening."
End Wokeness on X - "BREAKING: Mayor Frey tells ICE "get the fck out of Minneapolis" or more will be kiIIed"
Pete North on X - "This is playing out exactly as I predicted. This was absolutely inevitable. Now we're seeing a direct challenge to Trump's authority that could easily turn into a low level civil war. That's precisely what the left are agitating for. They want the "optics" of Trump having to either double down or back off. It's a propaganda win either way so far as they're concerned. Either outcome could see support for mass deportations evaporate, especially if it leads to riots and more deaths. The left will fight tooth and nail to keep the Somalian migrants they need to gerrymander elections. I was thinking along these lines a year ago when I tried to envisage what a similar programme would look like in Britain. I looked at the Harehills riots and the Kenmure Street incident in Glasgow. Same playbook. I then got to wondering what that looks like when immigration enforcement turn up to Savile Town in Dewsbury. It could very easily trigger a full blown revolt among Pakistani tribes - leading to nationwide unrest. Essentially, if you're going to pull the trigger on that, you've basically got to be prepared to put down an uprising. I don't see any British government having the political capital or the gumption to pull it off. You can just imagine the supine response of the British police, especially factoring in news from Birmingham this week over the football match. Certainly, it could not be done by local police forces. It would require a national immigration enforcement agency similar to ICE with armed police back up. They could very rapidly find themselves cornered and outnumbered - with left wing protests running interference. What you then have is a government unable to assert its own authority. Perhaps that is what's needed for the broader British public to wake up, but if anyone's labouring under the illusion that we can just wave a magic wand and begin mass deportations is just not thinking. This is why I favour the maximalist hostile environment approach to encourage as many as possible to leave of their own volition before anythign like this is even attempted."
Real Political Data on X - "People like this are either retarded, liars or a combination of both. Based on the two videos:
-There was originally one agent by the car
-She was clearly stopped when the two other ICE agents left their truck
-She was told several times by the agents to get out of the car
-Two clearly were on the side, and the one that actually shot her was in front of her even before she began to move
-She stayed in that same position when the agents on the side left their truck, she CLEARLY had her window open (so she would’ve been able to hear the orders) and only began to go in reverse AFTER the agent reached her car trying to get her out
-The agent in the front stayed in the general area in front of her as she began to go in reverse
-Her wheels clearly aimed for the direction of the the agent in front of her
-She began to go forward even though she would’ve by now have seen the agent and instead of stopping she accelerated
-The agent only raised his gun when the person began to go forward
-The agent shot her after he was clipped and he jumped out of the way, and the bullet entry is from the front, NOT the side"
Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 on X - "Gee I could’ve sworn it was JUST YESTERDAY these same people defended the murder of Ashli Babbitt by a federal officer. She didn’t even come close to what the ICE protester did here. And make no mistake—this is the exact scenario Democrats and the media have been stoking for months. It’s precisely what they’ve wanted all along."
Lauren Chen on X - "I just figured out why the Minnesota ICE death is bothering me so much. This liberal woman was willing to take on federal agents, to disrupt ICE operations, in order to protect criminal Somalis. Obviously, she probably didn't imagine she would be killed. But surely, she must have known that, at the very least, she could be arrested. She has three kids. So she was willing to be separated from her kids to protect criminal Somalis. Speaking as a mother, this is insanity. This is not rational thinking. What it is, instead, is the result of liberal brainrot that convinces progressive women they have more of a duty to nurture and protect poor, brown (criminal!) strangers than their own country, and hell, even their own children. I am praying for this woman's soul and for her family. But I mean it when I say this type of thinking is almost wholly responsible for the decline of Western civilization."
JerryRigEverything on X - "If a MASKED dude from an UNMARKED vehicle tries to open up a LOCKED car door - driving away or unloading are both reasonable actions. The 2nd Amendment was written for a tyrannical federal government - and here we are. That was a point-blank murder."
Paul on X - "Renee Good's Wife is literally on video saying she dragged renee there to impede ICE. They knew who they were. It's why they were there. You are playing dumb."
Plus "police" was clearly indicated on the vest and the car had lights and sirens. Naturally he is/was a covid mask supporter
Classic__Liberal 🌲🇺🇸 on X - "PSA: It is important to understand that the Left gt;DO NOT CARE< if visual evidence and laws objectively align with reality. The Left operates on postmodernist activism. Truth, reality isn’t discovered by observation it is gt;created< by narrative control and dominance. Reality is based by how many people you can induce people into outrage, and for those outraged to take action, either on the street activism, social media outrage or at the voting booth. The online agitators, activists and yes Communist politicians of Communist Minnesota will continue undeterred to defy reality in your face no matter how many times you repost the evidence."
Left wingers keep claiming it was the ICE officer's fault for getting in the way of a moving car. When the car wasn't moving at first. But that doesn't matter to them - they just keep lying
Exclusive | Renee Nicole Good was Minneapolis 'ICE Watch' 'warrior' who trained to resist feds before shooting - "Renee Nicole Good, the mom who was killed by a federal agent after veering her car toward him, was an anti-ICE “warrior” and was part of a group of activists who worked to “document and resist” the federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota, The Post can reveal. Good, who moved to the city last year, linked up with the anti-ICE activists through her 6-year-old son’s woke charter school, which boasts that it puts “social justice first” and prioritizes “involving kids in political and social activism,” multiple local sources said... Good and her wife, Rebecca, 40, were raising the boy together in the mostly working-class, activist-heavy neighborhood of south Minneapolis, which features tree-lined streets and a large number of homes with windows decked out in LGBTQ+ flags or signs depicting George Floyd. Just as many others did in the lefty enclave, Good sent her son to Southside Family Charter School, a K-5 academy opened in 1972 that from its inception has been “unabashedly dedicated to social justice education,” according to co-founder Susie Oppenheim. It was through her involvement in the school community that Good became involved in “ICE Watch” — a loose coalition of activists dedicated to disrupting ICE raids in the sanctuary city. “From my understanding, she was involved in social justice … we are a tight-knit community and a lot of parents are [activists],” former Southside gym teacher Rashad Rich, who resigned from the school last month, told The Post. He said current event topics like the killing of George Floyd were regular parts of the curriculum, and that last month students took a field trip where they learned about “aboriginal issues” — a reference to the indigenous people of far-away Australia. Coalitions similar to ICE Watch have cropped up all over the country — with activists using phone apps, whistles and car horns to warn neighborhoods when ICE shows up. ICE Watch and adjacent groups can also turn confrontational — with numerous instances of activists ramming agents with their cars in the past. “[Renee Good] was trained against these ICE agents — what to do, what not to do, it’s a very thorough training,” Leesa said. “To listen to commands, to know your rights, to whistle when you see an ICE agent,” she added. The group started out as a very loose confederation of anti-ICE activists, but has recently aligned itself with more radical organizations including Twin Cities Ungovernables. ICE Watch recently shared an Instagram post of the group’s that encouraged agitators to bring items that would help them barricade the streets around where the shooting took place, even urging people to bring things to burn, such as dried-up Christmas trees. This call for aggressive and even violent resistance comes as ICE agents have faced an unprecedented spike in car attacks, surging by some 3,200% over the last year, shocking data released by the Department of Homeland Security revealed to The Post. Federal officials said violent “radical rhetoric from sanctuary politicians” is to blame for vehicular attacks against ICE agents skyrocketing between Jan. 21, 2025, and Jan. 7, 2026 — 66 attacks were recorded during that period compared to just two the year before. In October, US Border Patrol agents shot an armed woman in Chicago who attempted to run over agents with her car after a group of activists “boxed in” agents with 10 cars. Last month, a federal judge dropped the charges against the woman, Marimar Martinez, who survived the shooting... the streets of the neighborhood were lined with heart-shaped signs featuring quotes by Assata Shakur, a radical black liberation activist who fled to Cuba in the 1970s after being convicted of murdering a New Jersey state trooper... According to the Southside Family Charter School’s website, it provides “an academically challenging, socially conscious education to diverse learners,” and declares it’s “proud” to offer what it calls a “social justice curriculum.” A photo from its Facebook page shows a dry-erase board of students’ “hopes and dreams” for the future, which include “Donald Trump’s heart grows 3x as big.”"
When you're a trained agitator, but left wingers still pretend you're innocent
Guess her training wasn't good enough, if she got herself killed
The fact that her supporters glorify convicted murderers of government officials is telling enough
Ex-brother-in-law of woman killed by ICE says she should have minded her own business - "The former brother-in-law of Renee Good, the woman who was killed by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, said that she shouldn’t have been in Minnesota and “minded her own business.”"
Left wingers claim Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been at the riot so it was his fault he got attacked, but left wingers are allowed to go wherever they want
Democrats Say Things Would Be Much Safer If Law Enforcement Would Just Stop Trying To Enforce The Law | Babylon Bee - ""Clearly, the problem here is the enforcement of laws," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. "They've constantly inflamed, prodded, and goaded mostly peaceful criminals into unavoidable acts of civil disobedience by tyrannically carrying out the charge entrusted to them. What gives them the right? Other than their badges." Other Democrats were quick to agree, noting that nearly all criminal reports filed somehow involve law enforcement agencies. "I don't think it's very polite of them to arrest people," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. "And things would be so much calmer if they just didn't do that. I understand that it's their job and all, but maybe they should just not do their jobs. They need to stop preventing protesters and lawbreakers from doing whatever they want. It's simple." At publishing time, Democrats had reintroduced impeachment charges against Donald Trump for allegedly not following the law."
Nobody is above the law - unless it helps the left wing agenda
Libs of TikTok on X - "Charlie Kirk got shot while peacefully exercising his free speech rights. The Left celebrated and called for more political violence Woman attempts to illegally run over an ICE agent with her car and gets shot. The Left screams and protests This is who they are. Never forget"
Renee Macklin Good’s wife releases statement about ICE shooting
Literally "dindu nuffin". Kindness means trying to kill people with your car
Matt Walsh on X - "This lesbian agitator gave her life to protect 68 IQ Somali scammers who couldn’t give less of a shit about her. The most disgraceful and humiliating end a person could possibly meet."
Armand Domalewski on X - "this is the sort of tweet St. Peter reads you before he pulls the lever that opens the trap door to hell"
Armand has never picked up a Bible in his life. This sort of thing is a big no no if you are someone trying to be Christ-like. : r/libsofreddit - "Highly emotional people don't understand that Matt Walsh is very literal. He's not saying she deserved to die; he's saying she chose to give her life to an unworthy cause."
MAZE on X - "MSM: She was not an activist. She wasn't looking for trouble. She was just driving home.
Her partner: "Come at us, go ahead...Go get yourself some lunch big boy.""
Jon Gabriel on X - "Setting aside today’s shooting, these people put themselves in inherently dangerous situations, then cry when bad things happen. They can avoid problems by having the slightest amount of situational awareness. If I would go out drinking with a big group of Navy buddies, the clock would hit midnight. One of the drunk guys I didn’t know would shout, “let’s go to the strip club!“ Knowing that nothing good ever happens after midnight (esp at a club), I would nope out of there. And I was never surprised to find out a couple of guys in the group got busted for fighting. The idiots were always shocked they got in trouble. They had a million excuses why they were innocent, life was unfair, etc. But the truth was, they had no situational awareness; they put themselves in a bad situation and reaped the consequences. Don’t involve yourself in protests that start getting violent. Everyone can tell when the mood turns dark in a big crowd. Don’t attend a “peaceful protest“ during the day and then hang out for the nighttime festivities. But if you do decide to do either, I won’t have much sympathy. Parse the vagaries of our case law all you want, but you’re an adult. Make better choices."
Colin Wright on X - "“These people put themselves in inherently dangerous situations, then cry when bad things happen.” That’s the entire point. Activist leaders deliberately encourage people to place themselves in risky confrontations, knowing that increased interactions with law enforcement raise the odds of producing a viral incident that can be used as a catalyst for a broader uprising. You can’t expect influential figures on the left to discourage this behavior, because it is one of the most effective tactics in their revolutionary playbook. The mass public mourning at vigils is largely performative. It is meant to generate sympathy, which is then leveraged to advance their desired revolution. They rely on the fact that calling all this out makes you look heartless. They count on that. It’s the reputational cost critics must pay, and it functions to shield their strategy designed to manufacture and weaponize victimhood."
malmesburyman on X - "Here’s the former editor of the Wall Street Journal attempting to launder communist direct action techniques as peaceful protest. Remember, the purpose of direct action is to achieve what they could not get at the ballot box by other, more forceful means— in this case, impeding and hampering the enforcement of immigration law. The fact that they are doing so with motor vehicles, which are potentially deadly weapons, makes it a kind of proto-insurgency and an obvious instigation to further violence."
George on X - ""Protest" is a form of pixie dust that can be sprinkled onto anything to make it better. Impeding law enforcement is good as long as it's a form of protest."
