Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
Wouldn’t normally consider JJR worth engaging with either but it is relevant to what I said is the main battle of the present moment. If I’m understanding his logic correctly, it goes as follows:
1) By being in the streets protesting ICE, protestors are committing the felony of impeding law enforcement. 2) An officer may use lethal force if someone is committing a felony upon their person. 3) Therefore, ICE officers may legally shoot anyone who is in the streets protesting ICE.
Almost impossible for the word “bootlicker” not to come to mind hearing that, but I’m trying to move past that for a moment to understand what’s happening better. Legally, of course, it’s absurd – peaceful protest is not a felony, and “an officer may use lethal force if a felony is being committed on their person” is only legally true in a pretty narrow sense. Wire fraud is a felony, for instance, but would not constitute justification for a cop to shoot a nonviolent offender. The legal standard here is Graham v. Connor which, while it’s generally been interpreted to grant tremendous leeway to officers, still requires them to have a reasonable belief that they were in danger. “Just by being in the streets they were committing a felony” doesn’t cut it.
But earlier on the page I said Americans could either admit ICE could just as easily target them, or they could file peaceful opposition to the government among the (extralegally) punishable offenses they would never commit. Doesn’t that seem to be what is happening here? JJR’s takeaway here is “don’t oppose ICE. Doesn’t matter if what they’re doing is right or wrong, doesn’t matter if it’s legal or illegal, doesn’t matter if all you’re doing is standing in a public space filming on your phone. Return to your homes and always do what they tell you.”
Is it too obvious to point out the quite literal “authoritarianism” to that sentiment? There’s a sort of Führerprinzip at play here, where the authority figures, simply by being authority figures, are not to be questioned. There’s no “right way” to oppose them – not peacefully, not within the protections of civil rights, not anything – because opposing them at all is a felony, and that means they can shoot you where you stand.
It also feels worth pointing out the obvious question – if they’re criminals, why not arrest and indict them? We’ve got a whole criminal justice system designed for exactly that. Due process, jury of your peers, all that good stuff. But in this case, while we’re assured all these protesters are committing felonies, basically none of them are being arrested and charged. Is there even a single case of one being convicted?
Because of course, everyone knows a conviction would be almost impossible to obtain. Here the officer’s sidearm is being used, not as a tool to ensure his safety while carrying out his duties, but as a sort of lit de justice to override any legal or even Constitutional protections the victim is entitled to. Enjoy your day in court, as soon as the mortician is done with you.
This is why I’m optimistic Americans won’t embrace that point of view. To do so, they’d either have to accept a legal justification like the above, or be so scared of the authorities they don’t dare call it bullshit. But I think the legal justification is far too absurd to honestly accept, and scary as the masked men are, the average American cannot yet believe the violence is so widespread they dare not speak their mind.
A majority of Americans won't see the video and conclude that the shooting was justified. Resisting, impeding, and intimidation aren't enough to justify the shoot. Even if the victim committed a felony. oBlade already ran through the scenarios that would change this presumption (but I gather from the replies that the people who most needed to hear those scenarios only made it halfway through his post before writing their reply about bootlicking or fascists.)
The circumstances surrounding the shooting will limit how Americans respond. Not because Americans over-trust law enforcement, but because of the circumstances that the loudest voices talk the least about. Americans aren't out there impeding federal operations, standing in traffic, dragging people away that are being apprehended, shoving or pushing federal officers, or resisting arrest. A lot of Americans know to film from a distance and obey instructions. Even if they get yelled at, to back away and keep filming. They have heard the repeated attempts to conflate peaceful law-aware protesting from actual lawbreaking activity, but it just doesn't play.
Retreat back to "but he shouldn't have been shot" to regain firm ground, but remember that it's a retreat from everything else you're trying to say about it.
If you think interfering with ICE is justified, and you don't have to comply with arrests, then you've already abandoned persuading Americans that they could be next. Americans will agree with investigating and prosecuting misconduct in a bad shoot (looks that way, in contrast to the Good hitting the ICE officer with her car), but they'll get off the boat once you start justifying breaking the law (because ICE is the Gestapo or whatever).
The second point that isn't getting enough visibility is that Minnesota and Minneapolis, among other states and cities, refuse to help ICE secure the scene of detentions and hand off violent illegal alien criminals to ICE. It would be excellent if protesters know they will be arrested by their local police if they inhibit or interfere with federal activity! ICE is around to investigate and detain for potential deportation, not to spend their resources throwing everybody that feels noble breaking the law into jail.
If you hit ICE for not arresting and the DOJ for not charging more lawbreakers that go beyond protected protest into federal crimes, it's just going to boomerang back to why the police aren't around in the first place to help effectuate such arrests. It's the same reason that yelling at DHS deploying so many forces to Minneapolis falls flat. They've been told they're on their own, so they must have enough locally to show up for whatever size mob might show up. ICE should get hit for the bad shoot, incompetence, and poor leadership, but the rest that I've said will continue to be true about its affect on ordinary Americans.
Here's a nice analysis of what's happening with ICE. Why they're wearing masks, why Trump reversed Biden's executive order mandating federal law enforcement to wear body cams etc.
On January 26 2026 06:26 dyhb wrote: A majority of Americans won't see the video and conclude that the shooting was justified.
Anything you add afterwards is pointless drivel. You should reflect on why you even needed to make such a lengthy post to say anything other than that executing somebody is wrong and should be punished.
On January 26 2026 06:26 dyhb wrote: A majority of Americans won't see the video and conclude that the shooting was justified.
Anything you add afterwards is pointless drivel. You should reflect on why you even needed to make such a lengthy post to say anything other than that executing somebody is wrong and should be punished.
To put it in your words, I wrote the rest because other people in the thread added drivel that was wrong and ignorant. If they had kept to just what's contained in that sentence, there would be no point in posting.
It is frustrating to watch everyone involved live down to the very worst. I basically agree with oBlade's break down of this particular incident, but there's a general point to be made for both parties.
The administration has a bunch of people totally wrong about 2nd amendment law (although they are trying to clean it up now) and heated rhetoric about "domestic terrorists" is ridiculous. Apparently people in the admin realize they are doing things wrong and losing the PR battle, as Trump's most recent post seems to give away. The only "deal" that should be made is the deal the various immigration agencies have in other states, where local and state authorities cooperate with the feds in executing federal law.
But that leads to the bigger problem. In too many of these blue jurisdictions ("politically noncompliant areas" to use Pete Buttigieg's phrase, what a work of art) the left and even elected Democrats scared of their left believe that if they don't like federal law then they have a veto on its enforcement. They also believe they are justified in everything they do, from obstruction, to "de-arrest", to barging into church where a pastor works for ICE, all these things that are really so destructive in their own way they feel no remorse over. Also recall in 2020 with the Floyd riots, where Dem governors refused to call out the national guard while people's business burn to the ground. Or the "CHAZ" in Seattle. Dems are frightened of the crazies and let this get out of hand. Walz is somehow managing to behave worse every day.
All this contributes to an environment where protesters believe that the law doesn't apply to them and creates these chaotic situations where tragedies can happen ("Why did they have real bullets?" Imagine asking that question). The federal government cannot surrender to the mob who thinks the law doesn't apply to them. But the must be aware and extra careful, espeically considering how sophisticated and how confrontational these left-wing activists have become.
Like countless others, I was shocked by the news of Renee Good’s shooting by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. But I was not surprised. I had warned months before that something like this would happen, having watched the troubling evolution of rapid response networks, a form of activism I helped pioneer during Donald Trump’s first term. Once focused on providing legal services to immigrants, rapid response networks now frequently promote a dangerous pattern of social-media-fueled confrontations with authorities.
For me, Trump’s victory in 2016 came as a shock. I was particularly worried about what his presidency would mean for immigrants. A first-year lawyer in New York City, I began working with immigration attorneys and community organizers to set up what would come to be known as rapid response networks. The goal was to confirm and document arrests, dispatch attorneys to detention centers, assist families, and raise funds to pay immigration bonds when possible. We channeled the energy of eager volunteers into concrete support for people detained by ICE.
Over the course of two years, I trained a steady stream of volunteers. The groups they worked with varied in size and effectiveness. Some secured grants and built formal programs with dedicated legal staff. Others operated informally, arranging rides for immigrants to court or check-ins with ICE. But certain features were consistent. All relied on small bodies of trained volunteers and nonprofit coordinators. All focused on supporting immigrants after arrest. Most notably, throughout the years these networks operated, I did not encounter a single instance in which local police or ICE agents arrested observers for their presence at the scene of an operation. This reflected a simple fact: Our efforts were not aimed at interfering with authorities.
Another distinguishing feature of our work was its relative anonymity. Providing legal aid to migrants does not lend itself to dramatic scenes. No one has gone viral by posting bond for a detainee. In terms of its tactics and visibility, our work had little in common with the large-scale demonstrations that defined liberal protest during the first Trump administration, like the Women’s March in 2017 and the George Floyd summer protests of 2020.
Over time, these rapid response networks declined. Toward the end of Trump’s first term, the COVID pandemic reduced ICE enforcement activity. Immigrants needed economic assistance more than legal help. Biden’s election made rapid response even less relevant. ICE interior removals fell to a historic low of 28,204, a 70 percent decrease from 2018. By his second year in office, most networks had gone dormant or pivoted to providing assistance to migrants who arrived as asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border.
What has reemerged during Trump’s second term bears little resemblance to the rapid response networks I once worked with. The emphasis is now on following and obstructing authorities, with an eye, at least for some participants, toward generating viral content. Sometimes described as ICE Watch, these new groups use the pretense of legal observation to place predominately white and college-educated urbanites into hostile confrontation with ICE agents. One of these people was Renee Good.
The transformation of rapid response networks cannot be explained by any change in the needs of immigrants. Most detainees still go through deportation hearings without an attorney. A large number are unable to afford bonds. These people would benefit from the sorts of assistance rapid reponse networks were once focused on providing. Unfortunately, many activists seem less concerned with the needs of migrants than with staging dramatic confrontations with an administration they despise.
“The Chicago Chief of Patrol told police officers en route to help the ICE agents to stand down.” Renee Good’s fateful decision to pursue armed federal agents and disrupt their operations did not occur in isolation. It was shaped by a broader political climate in which progressives have embraced more extreme and confrontational tactics as legitimate forms of protest. This shift was visible during the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020, when rallies across the country descended into unrest and destruction. It continued more quietly during President Biden’s term, when activists established encampments on elite college campuses to protest US support for Israel, and could be observed in online celebrations of the killing of a health insurance CEO and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
When Trump returned to office, that latent energy was no longer confined to the campus and internet. As ICE conducted enhanced enforcement operations in cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago, progressives discovered that they could channel their anger into action by responding to the scene of arrests and streaming their activity. Facebook pages and groups chats were formed, on which people were encouraged to follow agents and respond to arrest scenes.
Initially, I thought this was a continuation of the kind of immigrant-aid work I had engaged in during Trump’s first term. But one of the earliest signs that things had changed was the adoption of whistles by people responding to ICE arrests. Groups that employ this tactic generally describe it as a warning signal for immigrants, but it also attracts crowds, whose members may be untrained. It thus sets the stage for dramatic—and potentially dangerous—confrontations. (Renee Good’s partner can be seen wearing a bright orange whistle in video of the incident.)
---
As ICE Watch took off in 2025, the line between monitoring enforcement and obstructing it was routinely crossed. Protesters circulated license plate information and followed ICE vehicles through city streets, which on occasion triggered dangerous car chases involving multiple pursuers. During the first Trump administration, rapid response networks maintained a clear boundary between lawful observation and interference. In the second, however, the viral appeal of these tactics among disaffected progressives, combined with the absence of organizational structure to provide proper instruction or discipline, created a series of dangerous situations.
---
As more people have taken up these confrontational tactics, established immigrant-rights organizations have warned that some methods may be causing more harm than good. On January 17, a group of Hispanic and immigrant-serving non-profits in Maryland released a joint statement warning local protestors to stop using whistles. “This is not an action movie. You are not in a one-on-one fight with ICE. And you are not the center of this situation,” the statement said. The immigration groups also noted that anti-ICE activism may be doing more for the protestors themselves than it is for immigrants: “When tactics center the responder instead of the impacted person, harm follows even when good was intended.”
That sense of urgency helps explain why protest tactics have escalated. But it cannot excuse the choice by Democratic elected officials, along with the nonprofit and media ecosystems that surround them, to downplay the inherent danger of this kind of activism, one that places civilians in direct confrontation with armed federal agents. Despite the warnings of some immigration groups, a growing number of Democratic elected officials have endorsed and even participated in rapid response networks. In Chicago, several Democratic elected officials and candidates participated in direct action protests to block ICE cars using their bodies outside the Broadview Processing Center, where DHS brings many immigrants. In Minnesota, at least four state and local elected officials actively participate in ICE patrols themselves. And in the aftermath of Renee Good’s death, Gov. Tim Walz encouraged protesters to continue their activism, saying “You have an absolute right to peacefully film ICE agents as they conduct their activities. So carry your phone with you at all times. And if you see ICE in your neighborhood, take out that phone and hit record.”
This dynamic has been exacerbated by sanctuary laws that limit local law enforcement assistance of ICE operations. Many local Democratic officials have stretched their laws’ interpretation to bar police from aiding ICE even when protests physically obstruct enforcement operations or create clear safety risks for agents or the public. Protestors may make the dangerous assumption that because local police have not been called, they are free to conduct themselves how they wish—even if it involves breaking the law.
This has created a tinderbox environment in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis, as protesters adopt increasingly aggressive tactics without a clear understanding of the dangers involved. This dynamic is captured in the anguished question Renee Good’s partner asked in the immediate aftermath of her death: “Why did they have to be real bullets?” How did an entire city’s political leadership and public institutions lead participants to believe that impeding and obstructing the operations of federal law enforcement agents was fundamentally safe?
“Crime in Memphis fell by 41 percent.” In the immediate aftermath of Good’s death, critics have argued that her shooting reflects the violent and aggressive tactics the administration has used to terrorize immigrant communities, and as such, sweeping reforms must be made to curb excesses and abuses. Indeed, there are a growing number of credible allegations of ICE using excessive force and violating the rights of immigrants. Based on these reports and my own work with detainees, I believe a wide-ranging review of the agency’s treatment of immigrants during arrest and detention is needed. But broader conclusions about ICE’s routine practices and procedures when arresting immigrants cannot be drawn from this tragic incident, because the conduct captured in the videos largely reflects the new tactics ICE agents have been forced to adopt to manage protesters who disrupt their operations in progressive cities where local police cannot be relied upon to intervene. In the videos, ICE agents are seen recording Good’s license plate while attempting to arrest her for blocking traffic—actions that would ordinarily fall within the scope of local police work
In order to break out of the destructive dynamic seen in Minneapolis, Democratic leaders also need to engage in soul-searching. Local law enforcement should be allowed to respond when confrontations between protestors and ICE agents become dangerous. Fear of aiding ICE cannot be allowed to trump basic concerns of public safety. Democratic officials must also seriously consider rolling back sanctuary-city laws that prevent local law enforcement from transferring detainees to ICE based on the agency’s determination of removability under immigration law. One possibility is coming to an agreement with the Trump administration to ease access to jail data in exchange for cancelling enhanced enforcement operations. In the absence of such cooperation and with ICE operations fully funded until 2029, the administration will continue to surge at-large arrest operations in major cities, a far more disruptive and volatile form of ICE enforcement for immigrant communities.
A model for how cooperation can function in a Democratic-controlled city does exist. Last year, when the Trump administration selected Memphis for enhanced enforcement operations, Democratic mayor Paul Young chose not to resist. Instead, he coordinated with the thirteen federal agencies, including DHS, involved in Memphis Safe Task Force to prioritize the removal of the most dangerous offenders. By working with DHS, Young was able to focus enforcement on serious criminals, thereby lessening disruption in the community. The results appear to have been significant. In 2025, overall crime in Memphis fell by 41 percent, and murders declined by 47 percent compared to 2023. When protestors do show up to the scene of arrests, they are allowed to observe. But local police are called in if they become disruptive. In Memphis, the absence of serious confrontation with ICE has not prevented community groups from raising civil-liberties concerns or supporting immigrants, but has allowed them to do so without the distraction of street conflict.
We've had bouts of left-wing violent resistance to federal law before, and more generally we have 200 years of Democrats threatening or rebelling against federal laws they hate. So in that sense nothing is new, which might be comforting in it's own way. But when the entire media is ready to criticize everything that is done and amplify extreme voices it is paramount to act firmly but with discretion, and stick to the facts. Make deals with those who can actually be reasoned with. Sure, many of these people fundamentally don't believe in ANY enforcement of immigration law. But the majority of voters vehemently disagree. Appeal to those people. Left-wing tactics are unpopular (blocking traffic, interfering with law enforcement, generally getting in the way). Make them and all these politicians own it. Even if Dems have to be basically shamed into it, better than trying to match their rhetoric.
On January 26 2026 06:26 dyhb wrote: A majority of Americans won't see the video and conclude that the shooting was justified. Resisting, impeding, and intimidation aren't enough to justify the shoot. Even if the victim committed a felony. oBlade already ran through the scenarios that would change this presumption (but I gather from the replies that the people who most needed to hear those scenarios only made it halfway through his post before writing their reply about bootlicking or fascists.)
The circumstances surrounding the shooting will limit how Americans respond. Not because Americans over-trust law enforcement, but because of the circumstances that the loudest voices talk the least about. Americans aren't out there impeding federal operations, standing in traffic, dragging people away that are being apprehended, shoving or pushing federal officers, or resisting arrest. A lot of Americans know to film from a distance and obey instructions. Even if they get yelled at, to back away and keep filming. They have heard the repeated attempts to conflate peaceful law-aware protesting from actual lawbreaking activity, but it just doesn't play.
Retreat back to "but he shouldn't have been shot" to regain firm ground, but remember that it's a retreat from everything else you're trying to say about it.
If you think interfering with ICE is justified, and you don't have to comply with arrests, then you've already abandoned persuading Americans that they could be next. Americans will agree with investigating and prosecuting misconduct in a bad shoot (looks that way, in contrast to the Good hitting the ICE officer with her car), but they'll get off the boat once you start justifying breaking the law (because ICE is the Gestapo or whatever).
The second point that isn't getting enough visibility is that Minnesota and Minneapolis, among other states and cities, refuse to help ICE secure the scene of detentions and hand off violent illegal alien criminals to ICE. It would be excellent if protesters know they will be arrested by their local police if they inhibit or interfere with federal activity! ICE is around to investigate and detain for potential deportation, not to spend their resources throwing everybody that feels noble breaking the law into jail.
If you hit ICE for not arresting and the DOJ for not charging more lawbreakers that go beyond protected protest into federal crimes, it's just going to boomerang back to why the police aren't around in the first place to help effectuate such arrests. It's the same reason that yelling at DHS deploying so many forces to Minneapolis falls flat. They've been told they're on their own, so they must have enough locally to show up for whatever size mob might show up. ICE should get hit for the bad shoot, incompetence, and poor leadership, but the rest that I've said will continue to be true about its affect on ordinary Americans.
It is not controversial to oppose ICE, it is our duty and right as Americans. I invite you to read a little thing called the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
A majority of Americans won't see the video and conclude that the shooting was justified. Resisting, impeding, and intimidation aren't enough to justify the shoot. Even if the victim committed a felony. oBlade already ran through the scenarios that would change this presumption (but I gather from the replies that the people who most needed to hear those scenarios only made it halfway through his post before writing their reply about bootlicking or fascists.)
The circumstances surrounding the shooting will limit how Americans respond. Not because Americans over-trust law enforcement, but because of the circumstances that the loudest voices talk the least about. Americans aren't out there impeding federal operations, standing in traffic, dragging people away that are being apprehended, shoving or pushing federal officers, or resisting arrest. A lot of Americans know to film from a distance and obey instructions. Even if they get yelled at, to back away and keep filming. They have heard the repeated attempts to conflate peaceful law-aware protesting from actual lawbreaking activity, but it just doesn't play.
Retreat back to "but he shouldn't have been shot" to regain firm ground, but remember that it's a retreat from everything else you're trying to say about it.
If you think interfering with ICE is justified, and you don't have to comply with arrests, then you've already abandoned persuading Americans that they could be next. Americans will agree with investigating and prosecuting misconduct in a bad shoot (looks that way, in contrast to the Good hitting the ICE officer with her car), but they'll get off the boat once you start justifying breaking the law (because ICE is the Gestapo or whatever).+ Show Spoiler +
The second point that isn't getting enough visibility is that Minnesota and Minneapolis, among other states and cities, refuse to help ICE secure the scene of detentions and hand off violent illegal alien criminals to ICE. It would be excellent if protesters know they will be arrested by their local police if they inhibit or interfere with federal activity! ICE is around to investigate and detain for potential deportation, not to spend their resources throwing everybody that feels noble breaking the law into jail.
If you hit ICE for not arresting and the DOJ for not charging more lawbreakers that go beyond protected protest into federal crimes, it's just going to boomerang back to why the police aren't around in the first place to help effectuate such arrests. It's the same reason that yelling at DHS deploying so many forces to Minneapolis falls flat. They've been told they're on their own, so they must have enough locally to show up for whatever size mob might show up. ICE should get hit for the bad shoot, incompetence, and poor leadership, but the rest that I've said will continue to be true about its affect on ordinary Americans.
It’s notable that the defense keeps hinging on these abstract phrases like “impeding law enforcement.” Because what, specifically, constitutes “impeding”? If a group protests outside ICE’s headquarters, and that makes it take an extra couple minutes for an officer to make it from his car to his desk, they are technically “impeded,” no?
Of course, to be considered guilty of a crime the state needs to convince a jury of your peers that what you did is criminal, so unless those protesters are arrested and successfully prosecuted, legally, they’re not guilty of “impeding law enforcement” at all. But that’s not really the threshold anymore, is it? ICE isn’t particularly interested in arresting and prosecuting protesters; their punishment is more immediate and doesn’t require convincing anybody else of their righteousness.
As near as I can tell, Alex Pretti was just standing in a public space filming when ICE walked up to him. He didn’t shove them (although they shoved him); the most “aggressive” thing he did was step partially between an ICE officer and some woman that officer had just shoved to the ground. But ICE doesn’t appear to be interested in arresting her either; again, their justice is much more immediate. It’s not clear what operation there even is to impede; they appear to just be walking down the street and roughing up protesters.
Then for the rest of the interaction Alex is pepper-sprayed and/or on the ground in pain; I don’t see how that’s impeding anybody. Was there another target behind him they were trying to pepper spray? Were they aiming for the sidewalk and his head just happened to be in the way?
It is, I think, blindingly obvious that there is nothing he did in that interaction that they could ever convince a jury to convict him for. Likewise for nearly all of the Minneapolis residents currently in the streets opposing ICE. So when you keep saying they’re breaking the law, you clearly don’t mean in a “[would be found] guilty by a jury of their peers” sense. But you need to construct an “other” that they are, and other Americans are not, in order to turn this back into a distant problem that could only affect other people. And so this lawbreaking limbo is conjured, a nebulous miasma of “impeding” that has no essential characteristic other than that it absolutely, definitely, involves opposing the authorities in some form. So as long as you would never oppose the authorities, no matter how immoral or illegal their actions, no matter what legal rights are supposed to protect you, then you’ll never be in the same camp as those other people they’re beating, kidnapping, and occasionally shooting in the street.
Which puts us right back at a choice between “this could happen to anybody, including me” and “I must obey authority no matter what, then it will never happen to me.”
Up something like 40 points since last January. But sure, let's talk more about how the "average American" is totally fine with the warrantless raids and concentration camps and they're just getting distracted by the extrajudicial murder.
On January 26 2026 10:01 Introvert wrote: It is frustrating to watch everyone involved live down to the very worst. I basically agree with oBlade's break down of this particular incident, but there's a general point to be made for both parties.
The administration has a bunch of people totally wrong about 2nd amendment law (although they are trying to clean it up now) and heated rhetoric about "domestic terrorists" is ridiculous. Apparently people in the admin realize they are doing things wrong and losing the PR battle, as Trump's most recent post seems to give away. The only "deal" that should be made is the deal the various immigration agencies have in other states, where local and state authorities cooperate with the feds in executing federal law.
But that leads to the bigger problem. In too many of these blue jurisdictions ("politically noncompliant areas" to use Pete Buttigieg's phrase, what a work of art) the left and even elected Democrats scared of their left believe that if they don't like federal law then they have a veto on its enforcement. They also believe they are justified in everything they do, from obstruction, to "de-arrest", to barging into church where a pastor works for ICE, all these things that are really so destructive in their own way they feel no remorse over. Also recall in 2020 with the Floyd riots, where Dem governors refused to call out the national guard while people's business burn to the ground. Or the "CHAZ" in Seattle. Dems are frightened of the crazies and let this get out of hand. Walz is somehow managing to behave worse every day.
All this contributes to an environment where protesters believe that the law doesn't apply to them and creates these chaotic situations where tragedies can happen ("Why did they have real bullets?" Imagine asking that question). The federal government cannot surrender to the mob who thinks the law doesn't apply to them. But the must be aware and extra careful, espeically considering how sophisticated and how confrontational these left-wing activists have become.
Like countless others, I was shocked by the news of Renee Good’s shooting by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. But I was not surprised. I had warned months before that something like this would happen, having watched the troubling evolution of rapid response networks, a form of activism I helped pioneer during Donald Trump’s first term. Once focused on providing legal services to immigrants, rapid response networks now frequently promote a dangerous pattern of social-media-fueled confrontations with authorities.
For me, Trump’s victory in 2016 came as a shock. I was particularly worried about what his presidency would mean for immigrants. A first-year lawyer in New York City, I began working with immigration attorneys and community organizers to set up what would come to be known as rapid response networks. The goal was to confirm and document arrests, dispatch attorneys to detention centers, assist families, and raise funds to pay immigration bonds when possible. We channeled the energy of eager volunteers into concrete support for people detained by ICE.
Over the course of two years, I trained a steady stream of volunteers. The groups they worked with varied in size and effectiveness. Some secured grants and built formal programs with dedicated legal staff. Others operated informally, arranging rides for immigrants to court or check-ins with ICE. But certain features were consistent. All relied on small bodies of trained volunteers and nonprofit coordinators. All focused on supporting immigrants after arrest. Most notably, throughout the years these networks operated, I did not encounter a single instance in which local police or ICE agents arrested observers for their presence at the scene of an operation. This reflected a simple fact: Our efforts were not aimed at interfering with authorities.
Another distinguishing feature of our work was its relative anonymity. Providing legal aid to migrants does not lend itself to dramatic scenes. No one has gone viral by posting bond for a detainee. In terms of its tactics and visibility, our work had little in common with the large-scale demonstrations that defined liberal protest during the first Trump administration, like the Women’s March in 2017 and the George Floyd summer protests of 2020.
Over time, these rapid response networks declined. Toward the end of Trump’s first term, the COVID pandemic reduced ICE enforcement activity. Immigrants needed economic assistance more than legal help. Biden’s election made rapid response even less relevant. ICE interior removals fell to a historic low of 28,204, a 70 percent decrease from 2018. By his second year in office, most networks had gone dormant or pivoted to providing assistance to migrants who arrived as asylum seekers at the US-Mexico border.
What has reemerged during Trump’s second term bears little resemblance to the rapid response networks I once worked with. The emphasis is now on following and obstructing authorities, with an eye, at least for some participants, toward generating viral content. Sometimes described as ICE Watch, these new groups use the pretense of legal observation to place predominately white and college-educated urbanites into hostile confrontation with ICE agents. One of these people was Renee Good.
The transformation of rapid response networks cannot be explained by any change in the needs of immigrants. Most detainees still go through deportation hearings without an attorney. A large number are unable to afford bonds. These people would benefit from the sorts of assistance rapid reponse networks were once focused on providing. Unfortunately, many activists seem less concerned with the needs of migrants than with staging dramatic confrontations with an administration they despise.
“The Chicago Chief of Patrol told police officers en route to help the ICE agents to stand down.” Renee Good’s fateful decision to pursue armed federal agents and disrupt their operations did not occur in isolation. It was shaped by a broader political climate in which progressives have embraced more extreme and confrontational tactics as legitimate forms of protest. This shift was visible during the George Floyd protests in the summer of 2020, when rallies across the country descended into unrest and destruction. It continued more quietly during President Biden’s term, when activists established encampments on elite college campuses to protest US support for Israel, and could be observed in online celebrations of the killing of a health insurance CEO and the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
When Trump returned to office, that latent energy was no longer confined to the campus and internet. As ICE conducted enhanced enforcement operations in cities such as Los Angeles and Chicago, progressives discovered that they could channel their anger into action by responding to the scene of arrests and streaming their activity. Facebook pages and groups chats were formed, on which people were encouraged to follow agents and respond to arrest scenes.
Initially, I thought this was a continuation of the kind of immigrant-aid work I had engaged in during Trump’s first term. But one of the earliest signs that things had changed was the adoption of whistles by people responding to ICE arrests. Groups that employ this tactic generally describe it as a warning signal for immigrants, but it also attracts crowds, whose members may be untrained. It thus sets the stage for dramatic—and potentially dangerous—confrontations. (Renee Good’s partner can be seen wearing a bright orange whistle in video of the incident.)
---
As ICE Watch took off in 2025, the line between monitoring enforcement and obstructing it was routinely crossed. Protesters circulated license plate information and followed ICE vehicles through city streets, which on occasion triggered dangerous car chases involving multiple pursuers. During the first Trump administration, rapid response networks maintained a clear boundary between lawful observation and interference. In the second, however, the viral appeal of these tactics among disaffected progressives, combined with the absence of organizational structure to provide proper instruction or discipline, created a series of dangerous situations.
---
As more people have taken up these confrontational tactics, established immigrant-rights organizations have warned that some methods may be causing more harm than good. On January 17, a group of Hispanic and immigrant-serving non-profits in Maryland released a joint statement warning local protestors to stop using whistles. “This is not an action movie. You are not in a one-on-one fight with ICE. And you are not the center of this situation,” the statement said. The immigration groups also noted that anti-ICE activism may be doing more for the protestors themselves than it is for immigrants: “When tactics center the responder instead of the impacted person, harm follows even when good was intended.”
That sense of urgency helps explain why protest tactics have escalated. But it cannot excuse the choice by Democratic elected officials, along with the nonprofit and media ecosystems that surround them, to downplay the inherent danger of this kind of activism, one that places civilians in direct confrontation with armed federal agents. Despite the warnings of some immigration groups, a growing number of Democratic elected officials have endorsed and even participated in rapid response networks. In Chicago, several Democratic elected officials and candidates participated in direct action protests to block ICE cars using their bodies outside the Broadview Processing Center, where DHS brings many immigrants. In Minnesota, at least four state and local elected officials actively participate in ICE patrols themselves. And in the aftermath of Renee Good’s death, Gov. Tim Walz encouraged protesters to continue their activism, saying “You have an absolute right to peacefully film ICE agents as they conduct their activities. So carry your phone with you at all times. And if you see ICE in your neighborhood, take out that phone and hit record.”
This dynamic has been exacerbated by sanctuary laws that limit local law enforcement assistance of ICE operations. Many local Democratic officials have stretched their laws’ interpretation to bar police from aiding ICE even when protests physically obstruct enforcement operations or create clear safety risks for agents or the public. Protestors may make the dangerous assumption that because local police have not been called, they are free to conduct themselves how they wish—even if it involves breaking the law.
This has created a tinderbox environment in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and Minneapolis, as protesters adopt increasingly aggressive tactics without a clear understanding of the dangers involved. This dynamic is captured in the anguished question Renee Good’s partner asked in the immediate aftermath of her death: “Why did they have to be real bullets?” How did an entire city’s political leadership and public institutions lead participants to believe that impeding and obstructing the operations of federal law enforcement agents was fundamentally safe?
“Crime in Memphis fell by 41 percent.” In the immediate aftermath of Good’s death, critics have argued that her shooting reflects the violent and aggressive tactics the administration has used to terrorize immigrant communities, and as such, sweeping reforms must be made to curb excesses and abuses. Indeed, there are a growing number of credible allegations of ICE using excessive force and violating the rights of immigrants. Based on these reports and my own work with detainees, I believe a wide-ranging review of the agency’s treatment of immigrants during arrest and detention is needed. But broader conclusions about ICE’s routine practices and procedures when arresting immigrants cannot be drawn from this tragic incident, because the conduct captured in the videos largely reflects the new tactics ICE agents have been forced to adopt to manage protesters who disrupt their operations in progressive cities where local police cannot be relied upon to intervene. In the videos, ICE agents are seen recording Good’s license plate while attempting to arrest her for blocking traffic—actions that would ordinarily fall within the scope of local police work
In order to break out of the destructive dynamic seen in Minneapolis, Democratic leaders also need to engage in soul-searching. Local law enforcement should be allowed to respond when confrontations between protestors and ICE agents become dangerous. Fear of aiding ICE cannot be allowed to trump basic concerns of public safety. Democratic officials must also seriously consider rolling back sanctuary-city laws that prevent local law enforcement from transferring detainees to ICE based on the agency’s determination of removability under immigration law. One possibility is coming to an agreement with the Trump administration to ease access to jail data in exchange for cancelling enhanced enforcement operations. In the absence of such cooperation and with ICE operations fully funded until 2029, the administration will continue to surge at-large arrest operations in major cities, a far more disruptive and volatile form of ICE enforcement for immigrant communities.
A model for how cooperation can function in a Democratic-controlled city does exist. Last year, when the Trump administration selected Memphis for enhanced enforcement operations, Democratic mayor Paul Young chose not to resist. Instead, he coordinated with the thirteen federal agencies, including DHS, involved in Memphis Safe Task Force to prioritize the removal of the most dangerous offenders. By working with DHS, Young was able to focus enforcement on serious criminals, thereby lessening disruption in the community. The results appear to have been significant. In 2025, overall crime in Memphis fell by 41 percent, and murders declined by 47 percent compared to 2023. When protestors do show up to the scene of arrests, they are allowed to observe. But local police are called in if they become disruptive. In Memphis, the absence of serious confrontation with ICE has not prevented community groups from raising civil-liberties concerns or supporting immigrants, but has allowed them to do so without the distraction of street conflict.
We've had bouts of left-wing violent resistance to federal law before, and more generally we have 200 years of Democrats threatening or rebelling against federal laws they hate. So in that sense nothing is new, which might be comforting in it's own way. But when the entire media is ready to criticize everything that is done and amplify extreme voices it is paramount to act firmly but with discretion, and stick to the facts. Make deals with those who can actually be reasoned with. Sure, many of these people fundamentally don't believe in ANY enforcement of immigration law. But the majority of voters vehemently disagree. Appeal to those people. Left-wing tactics are unpopular (blocking traffic, interfering with law enforcement, generally getting in the way). Make them and all these politicians own it. Even if Dems have to be basically shamed into it, better than trying to match their rhetoric.
Or maybe conservatives and republicans dont think the laws apply to them. See Jan 6th, fake electors, rapists, pedophiles, etc
On January 26 2026 05:04 ChristianS wrote: 1) By being in the streets protesting ICE, protestors are committing the felony of impeding law enforcement. 2) An officer may use lethal force if someone is committing a felony upon their person. 3) Therefore, ICE officers may legally shoot anyone who is in the streets protesting ICE.
I've heard an opinion by one of the lawyers that ICE's duty is not crowd control and enforcing regulatory & civil laws so protesters do not impede their line of duty in any way. Handling protesters is not ICE's job so if they're doing so they're doing it illegally and outside of their jurisdiction.
If protests are on the ICE's way to their designated target it's other law enforcement's duty to secure a route for them, not ICE's.
Googled ICE agent salary and was not disappointed. Apparently there‘s student loan forgiveness involved, so it‘s not surprising that some of them are in the itchy trigger finger zone.
Up something like 40 points since last January. But sure, let's talk more about how the "average American" is totally fine with the warrantless raids and concentration camps and they're just getting distracted by the extrajudicial murder.
A majority of Americans won't see the video and conclude that the shooting was justified. Resisting, impeding, and intimidation aren't enough to justify the shoot. Even if the victim committed a felony. oBlade already ran through the scenarios that would change this presumption (but I gather from the replies that the people who most needed to hear those scenarios only made it halfway through his post before writing their reply about bootlicking or fascists.)
The circumstances surrounding the shooting will limit how Americans respond. Not because Americans over-trust law enforcement, but because of the circumstances that the loudest voices talk the least about. Americans aren't out there impeding federal operations, standing in traffic, dragging people away that are being apprehended, shoving or pushing federal officers, or resisting arrest. A lot of Americans know to film from a distance and obey instructions. Even if they get yelled at, to back away and keep filming. They have heard the repeated attempts to conflate peaceful law-aware protesting from actual lawbreaking activity, but it just doesn't play.
Retreat back to "but he shouldn't have been shot" to regain firm ground, but remember that it's a retreat from everything else you're trying to say about it.
If you think interfering with ICE is justified, and you don't have to comply with arrests, then you've already abandoned persuading Americans that they could be next. Americans will agree with investigating and prosecuting misconduct in a bad shoot (looks that way, in contrast to the Good hitting the ICE officer with her car), but they'll get off the boat once you start justifying breaking the law (because ICE is the Gestapo or whatever).+ Show Spoiler +
The second point that isn't getting enough visibility is that Minnesota and Minneapolis, among other states and cities, refuse to help ICE secure the scene of detentions and hand off violent illegal alien criminals to ICE. It would be excellent if protesters know they will be arrested by their local police if they inhibit or interfere with federal activity! ICE is around to investigate and detain for potential deportation, not to spend their resources throwing everybody that feels noble breaking the law into jail.
If you hit ICE for not arresting and the DOJ for not charging more lawbreakers that go beyond protected protest into federal crimes, it's just going to boomerang back to why the police aren't around in the first place to help effectuate such arrests. It's the same reason that yelling at DHS deploying so many forces to Minneapolis falls flat. They've been told they're on their own, so they must have enough locally to show up for whatever size mob might show up. ICE should get hit for the bad shoot, incompetence, and poor leadership, but the rest that I've said will continue to be true about its affect on ordinary Americans.
It’s notable that the defense keeps hinging
It's interesting that you're calling this "the defense" as "the defense keeps hinging." But I'll meet you where you're at right now. It's interesting that you have to call it a defense, and not explain further. I started off two posts with the assumption that this was a bad shoot and most Americans would agree (rare investigation results notwithstanding), you should really elaborate on what you mean.
on these abstract phrases like “impeding law enforcement.” Because what, specifically, constitutes “impeding”? If a group protests outside ICE’s headquarters, and that makes it take an extra couple minutes for an officer to make it from his car to his desk, they are technically “impeded,” no?
That's why I responded, in a sense. I wrote it out, to you, knowing it would be a tough thing to actually address.
They have heard the repeated attempts to conflate peaceful law-aware protesting from actual lawbreaking activity, but it just doesn't play.
Because we would both agree that protesting on the sidewalk outside ICE headquarters is just protest. Blocking their vehicles? That's against the law. Putting your vehicle perpendicular to traffic, blocking or partially blocking a lane? Also against the law. Helping your friend break free from ICE officers in the process of putting the person under arrest? Also against the law. (If you want an easy example to show your good faith, look at MN ICE Watch stuff on how to "de-arrest" and what grip to use to free someone from custody).
Maybe you can say it, in fact I would invite you to detail at least three things that people have done in these protests or asserted as lawful that break the law by impeding ICE officers. Because it is a bit of a dodge to say "an extra couple minutes" like they're not blocking access, but maybe you mean they're requiring force and threats to get them to let vehicles or personnel into the facility. Yes, I wrote the post hoping to elucidate the trouble with conflating civil rights protected protest and impeding federal officers, and you respond with more conflation and vague scenarios.
That's the sort of trouble that's still dividing Americans from joining with the protesters, even if they can agree on the shooting itself and hate ICE on those grounds.
Of course, to be considered guilty of a crime the state needs to convince a jury of your peers that what you did is criminal, so unless those protesters are arrested and successfully prosecuted, legally, they’re not guilty of “impeding law enforcement” at all. But that’s not really the threshold anymore, is it? ICE isn’t particularly interested in arresting and prosecuting protesters; their punishment is more immediate and doesn’t require convincing anybody else of their righteousness.
As said in my post, they're interested in investigating and detaining individuals for deportation. Having insufficient resources to do their job and also conduct police operations is one big glaring problem with denying police assistance to ICE and CBP and others. I'd like to think that you're saying this knowing that it implies you want thousands of extra federal officers deployed to Minneapolis to assist with arresting anti-ICE types when they commit crimes. And you know, without commenting on it, that police have been told to not assist.
As near as I can tell, Alex Pretti was just standing in a public space filming when ICE walked up to him. He didn’t shove them (although they shoved him); the most “aggressive” thing he did was step partially between an ICE officer and some woman that officer had just shoved to the ground. But ICE doesn’t appear to be interested in arresting her either; again, their justice is much more immediate. It’s not clear what operation there even is to impede; they appear to just be walking down the street and roughing up protesters.
A little strange to call standing in the middle of the road a "public space," as the videos I saw start out (both the shoved woman and the man). It's the middle of the road. It's not "just standing in a public space" like he's at the campus quad or the sidewalk. Come on.
The first two are one or two feet away from ICE officers in the road, blowing whistles, and maybe doing more but the camera does cut away for a bit. Let's see the investigation on that. After the officer pushes one lady and Pretti steps in front with his hands up, he lands on top of her and grabs her (you can see officers pulling him off). So if they're going to arrest the lady for impeding the investigation, he at least has to be detained to effectuate that.
If you're standing in the middle of a road and very close to ICE officers performing their duties, and they tell you to get back, it's time to get back and you may be arrested if you refuse. I'm just going to assume you're not trolling me here. You can see this a million times when police secure a scene that they don't allow random people to intrude on whatever arrest or investigation they're performing. Usually, they have enough people on the scene to do their job while others keep you back from interfering or being close enough to interfere in an instant.
Then for the rest of the interaction Alex is pepper-sprayed and/or on the ground in pain; I don’t see how that’s impeding anybody. Was there another target behind him they were trying to pepper spray? Were they aiming for the sidewalk and his head just happened to be in the way?
I don't know why you would think there's some new cause happening after the pepper spray.
It is, I think, blindingly obvious that there is nothing he did in that interaction that they could ever convince a jury to convict him for. Likewise for nearly all of the Minneapolis residents currently in the streets opposing ICE. So when you keep saying they’re breaking the law, you clearly don’t mean in a “[would be found] guilty by a jury of their peers” sense. But you need to construct an “other” that they are, and other Americans are not, in order to turn this back into a distant problem that could only affect other people. And so this lawbreaking limbo is conjured, a nebulous miasma of “impeding” that has no essential characteristic other than that it absolutely, definitely, involves opposing the authorities in some form. So as long as you would never oppose the authorities, no matter how immoral or illegal their actions, no matter what legal rights are supposed to protect you, then you’ll never be in the same camp as those other people they’re beating, kidnapping, and occasionally shooting in the street.
Misdemeanor stuff, not a felony as best I can tell from the close video and the shorter video from further away. Maybe a fine, maybe released with a warning. The concealed carry without having ID would be much, much more.
Which puts us right back at a choice between “this could happen to anybody, including me” and “I must obey authority no matter what, then it will never happen to me.”
You've made an attempt, but I don't think ordinary Americans will look at that and say "My civil rights are being violated if I can't stand in the middle of the street and 1-2 feet from officers blowing my whistle at them." Go on the sidewalk and film whom they bring out, if they mistreat him or others, and anything else. I think you know this, but aren't willing to admit it yet.
A majority of Americans won't see the video and conclude that the shooting was justified. Resisting, impeding, and intimidation aren't enough to justify the shoot. Even if the victim committed a felony. oBlade already ran through the scenarios that would change this presumption (but I gather from the replies that the people who most needed to hear those scenarios only made it halfway through his post before writing their reply about bootlicking or fascists.)
The circumstances surrounding the shooting will limit how Americans respond. Not because Americans over-trust law enforcement, but because of the circumstances that the loudest voices talk the least about. Americans aren't out there impeding federal operations, standing in traffic, dragging people away that are being apprehended, shoving or pushing federal officers, or resisting arrest. A lot of Americans know to film from a distance and obey instructions. Even if they get yelled at, to back away and keep filming. They have heard the repeated attempts to conflate peaceful law-aware protesting from actual lawbreaking activity, but it just doesn't play.
Retreat back to "but he shouldn't have been shot" to regain firm ground, but remember that it's a retreat from everything else you're trying to say about it.
If you think interfering with ICE is justified, and you don't have to comply with arrests, then you've already abandoned persuading Americans that they could be next. Americans will agree with investigating and prosecuting misconduct in a bad shoot (looks that way, in contrast to the Good hitting the ICE officer with her car), but they'll get off the boat once you start justifying breaking the law (because ICE is the Gestapo or whatever).+ Show Spoiler +
The second point that isn't getting enough visibility is that Minnesota and Minneapolis, among other states and cities, refuse to help ICE secure the scene of detentions and hand off violent illegal alien criminals to ICE. It would be excellent if protesters know they will be arrested by their local police if they inhibit or interfere with federal activity! ICE is around to investigate and detain for potential deportation, not to spend their resources throwing everybody that feels noble breaking the law into jail.
If you hit ICE for not arresting and the DOJ for not charging more lawbreakers that go beyond protected protest into federal crimes, it's just going to boomerang back to why the police aren't around in the first place to help effectuate such arrests. It's the same reason that yelling at DHS deploying so many forces to Minneapolis falls flat. They've been told they're on their own, so they must have enough locally to show up for whatever size mob might show up. ICE should get hit for the bad shoot, incompetence, and poor leadership, but the rest that I've said will continue to be true about its affect on ordinary Americans.
It’s notable that the defense keeps hinging on these abstract phrases like “impeding law enforcement.” Because what, specifically, constitutes “impeding”? If a group protests outside ICE’s headquarters, and that makes it take an extra couple minutes for an officer to make it from his car to his desk, they are technically “impeded,” no?
Impeding is one of the exact words in the US Code.
You can investigate case law to find out what "impeding" has been found to mean. If you make a guy late from his car, you might not get arrested. But DHS does not exist as a roaming group of mascots meant to absorb anti-MAGA sentiment as a form of therapy for the people blocking them. They are engaged in official business. They would rather you didn't block them, and to a point if people move and leave and retreat when the megaphone says "Get out of the way," that's a happy unarrested ending. Or they can detain you under reasonable suspicion, and then release you. Or they can arrest you with probable cause, and also release you.
In other words, they would rather not get bogged down arresting and transporting people for blocking them from arresting illegals, when their goal is to arrest illegals. But that's the goal of mobbing them and that's why they need more officers in places that mob them. The goal is overload. That's why it's obstruction. Otherwise the "fighting" and "resistance" and "defending our communities" would have no meaning if it was just standing around and recording. Which many people are doing peacefully. And then many other Darwin Award hopefuls are overstepping.
Obviously it's not "just" peaceful protesting because then it wouldn't be "fighting back." You know the kid in elementary school who put his finger 1 inch from your face and yelled "I'M NOT TOUCHING YOU" - Don't do that to federal law enforcement, is the gist of the idea.
Look at the well-established culture of actual 1st amendment auditors on Youtube. They don't do a single thing, they just stand there and wait for police abuse and get a clear lawsuit. Now, the minute someone does anything to impede - block the street, block a car, blow 50 airhorns? Good luck with that.
On January 26 2026 10:04 ChristianS wrote: Of course, to be considered guilty of a crime the state needs to convince a jury of your peers that what you did is criminal, so unless those protesters are arrested and successfully prosecuted, legally, they’re not guilty of “impeding law enforcement” at all. But that’s not really the threshold anymore, is it? ICE isn’t particularly interested in arresting and prosecuting protesters; their punishment is more immediate and doesn’t require convincing anybody else of their righteousness.
Following this, then therefore legally nobody is guilty of having murdered Pretti, does that sound like the logic you wanted to go with?
Disclaimer: To the really narrow-minded who insist on misreading, again at no point did I or have I said that Pretti should have been shot or deserved to be shot. Pretti did not deserve to be shot.
On January 26 2026 13:36 dyhb wrote: So if they're going to arrest the lady for impeding the investigation
The investigation of who?
Which investigation of which illegal immigrant are they arresting that lady for impeding when they shove her to the ground?
It feels like it ought to be worth being specific here given that you’re using it as justification for the execution of an American citizen. Like if it was the illegal immigrant who ate every cat a few years ago and they were seconds away from catching her but this lady was in the way then they should bring that up to explain their actions.
If you start out your post complaining that I called you “the defense,” and then spend the rest of your post mustering a defense of ICE from every angle you can imagine, you’re not really persuading me that I’ve misidentified you.
There’s a “No Angel” impulse any time law enforcement kills somebody to dig up any dirt on the victim you can that I’ve always found ugly. “Oh, they had drugs in their system.” “Oh, they stole a pack of cigarettes.” I understand it rhetorically, you need to combat a martyr narrative and you’re working with the hand you’ve been dealt. But not only is it straightforwardly bad faith, it also means you’ve made it your objective to slander and demean the deceased any way you can.
All that said, “he was standing in the middle of the road” is about the weakest No Angel defense I’ve ever heard. There was a protest nearby, no? I believe witnesses testified he had been directing traffic? Anyway the earliest video I’ve seen is taken from a car, as it’s driving past, which it’s able to do because he wasn’t obstructing traffic. If we consider the standard for “law-breaking” to be “would a prosecutor be able to convince a jury to convict this person” I think the answer is plainly, unambiguously no. (@oBlade: by the way, I think the answer for the cop who fired the first shot is pretty likely “yes,” so yeah, I’m comfortable with that standard.)
AFAIK it is not a requirement of Minnesota law that bystanders obey any order given by a law enforcement officer, let alone ICE officer. “If they tell you to get back you get back, or you might be arrested” is certainly true, but not because you’ve broken a law – rather, because they’re arresting people who haven’t broken any law all over the place. “You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride,” as they say, right? Theoretically you’re supposed to have a warrant or probable cause to arrest someone, but God knows they’re not abiding by that. That officer had no cause to shove that woman, he had no cause to pepper spray Alex, they had no cause to knock him to the ground and beat him, and they had no cause to shoot him. All of these are actions of a force that is brazenly confident that they are not accountable to any restrictions on their behavior.
So no, being “law-abiding” is not a reliable defense against ICE violence. Unquestioning obedience might be, but that puts us right back at the same choice I keep highlighting: either it could happen to you, or because of your unquestioning obedience to authority, it will only happen to other people. I don’t think that many people are ready to choose the latter.
We’ve already gone through this whole ordeal with the whole DOGE thing. The discussion is going to produce exactly the same result.
Supporters of the administration unquestionably support Elon Musk gaining access to the US government simply due to the fact he is the richest man in the world. All evidence you provide them that he is an idiot who has either stolen his achievements from more accomplished experts (Tesla, SpaceX) or is just legitimately an idiot (gaming, pop culture references, Tesla, Boring Company, anything transportation related, submarines) is ignored. Because there must be a reason why he is so successful and surely he is a benevolent actor without ulterior motives.
Predictably he does not make a meaningful cut to government spending because he’s not targeting interest payments, military, social security, medical. And is found to have wrecked existing government agencies (most of which have gone back to rehire the people that got laid off because no shit they actually do work and you can’t evaluate people based on word count per day), gained access to every citizen’s personal information, and has improperly handled security of sensitive information.
And the response to that is always along the lines of “well you got to crack some eggs to make an omelette, at least we tried”. They currently and will never show any care that, at the bare minimum, ICE is instigating community response to try and justify their behaviour. It’s cynical and nihilistic end justifying the means garbage, which is made even worse because it actually does nothing to improve the supporter’s personal wellbeing just like the case with DOGE.
On January 26 2026 14:37 ChristianS wrote: If you start out your post complaining that I called you “the defense,” and then spend the rest of your post mustering a defense of ICE from every angle you can imagine, you’re not really persuading me that I’ve misidentified you.
When I write two posts on why there isn't a defense for the ICE shooting, from what I can see on the video, it's pretty trollish and idiotic to open your post "the defense keeps hinging." An ICE officer shot one Alex Pretti, but the man not defending the shooting is "the defense." Come again?
There’s a “No Angel” impulse any time law enforcement kills somebody to dig up any dirt on the victim you can that I’ve always found ugly. “Oh, they had drugs in their system.” “Oh, they stole a pack of cigarettes.” I understand it rhetorically, you need to combat a martyr narrative and you’re working with the hand you’ve been dealt. But not only is it straightforwardly bad faith, it also means you’ve made it your objective to slander and demean the deceased any way you can.
All that said, “he was standing in the middle of the road” is about the weakest No Angel defense I’ve ever heard. There was a protest nearby, no? I believe witnesses testified he had been directing traffic? Anyway the earliest video I’ve seen is taken from a car, as it’s driving past, which it’s able to do because he wasn’t obstructing traffic. If we consider the standard for “law-breaking” to be “would a prosecutor be able to convince a jury to convict this person” I think the answer is plainly, unambiguously no. (@oBlade: by the way, I think the answer for the cop who fired the first shot is pretty likely “yes,” so yeah, I’m comfortable with that standard.)
Here you go tilting after windmills. I already condemned the shooting, so don't try to tell me that I'm only in it to dig up dirt on the victim to justify his death.
AFAIK it is not a requirement of Minnesota law that bystanders obey any order given by a law enforcement officer, let alone ICE officer. “If they tell you to get back you get back, or you might be arrested” is certainly true, but not because you’ve broken a law – rather, because they’re arresting people who haven’t broken any law all over the place. “You can beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride,” as they say, right? Theoretically you’re supposed to have a warrant or probable cause to arrest someone, but God knows they’re not abiding by that. That officer had no cause to shove that woman, he had no cause to pepper spray Alex, they had no cause to knock him to the ground and beat him, and they had no cause to shoot him. All of these are actions of a force that is brazenly confident that they are not accountable to any restrictions on their behavior.
By all means, argue that the officers displayed excessive force in effecting a detention and potential arrest. I was alleging that you knowingly conflated the lawful ways to protest ICE actions and when those actions violate federal law. You can change your mind and 100% agree with me and still also think that ICE shouldn't have pushed or pepper-sprayed.
So no, being “law-abiding” is not a reliable defense against ICE violence. Unquestioning obedience might be, but that puts us right back at the same choice I keep highlighting: either it could happen to you, or because of your unquestioning obedience to authority, it will only happen to other people. I don’t think that many people are ready to choose the latter.
I'm a little more confident than you are that Americans know protesting in a public place doesn't include finding ICE vehicles and blowing a whistle in their face while in the middle of a street.
EPT
