This was not a fun cartoon to write or draw.
On January 7, 2026, Renee Nicole Good was shot to death in her car by Jonathan Ross, an ICE agent who has been with the agency a decade.
(Wait, January 7? Has it really only been two days? It feels like so much longer).
The same day, the Department of Homeland Security released a statement falsely accusing Good of attempting to murder ICE agents by running them down, adding:
An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots. He used his training and saved his own life and that of his fellow officers.
With his characteristic muddle of malice, stupidity, and delusion, President Trump twice claimed that Good actually had run over Ross: “She didn’t try to run him over, she ran him over.”
Several news agencies (such as this well-made New York Times video) did thorough frame-by-frame analysis of several videos that were taken, showing that the administration was lying about the shooting.
Of course, all police departments – not just ICE – will justify shooting people by claiming they were in deadly peril, or reasonably thought they were. It’s the get out of jail free card for law enforcement, even in cases like an unarmed Black man being shot in the back. And although there are so many infuriating things about the murder of Renee Good, somehow that really got under my craw.
Eventually, I wrote this cartoon, and over several drafts kept whittling it down and simplifying it until there were only two words of dialog. I hope it’s effective.
I went back and forth on how malicious and evil to make the ICE agent in the final panel. Then I read about the ICE shooting of Marimar Martinez, just two months before Good’s death. Martinez, like Good, was accused by an ICE agent of trying to kill him with her car. Martinez, despite being shot five times, survived, and the case against her was so weak the government quietly dropped all charges.
The agent who shot Martinez, Charles Exum, sent texts to his fellow ICE agents gloating about the shooting. His texts included: “I fired 5 rounds, and she had 7 holes. Put that in your book boys,” “I’m up for another round of ‘fuck around and find out’” and “Sweet. My fifteen mins of fame. Lmao.”
Exum, by the way, is a supervisory agent and a shooting instructor for ICE. He’s teaching new agents how to behave. There’s no reason to think that his disgusting attitudes aren’t the norm within ICE.
ICE is a toxic agency, and deserves to be shuttered.
There is always sad and enraging news going on somewhere in the world. I don’t think that should stop us from saying: Happy New Year! Let’s fervently hope it’s a better one.
TRANSCRIPT OF CARTOON
This cartoon has four panels. Each panel shows two people on a sidewalk: One is a masked ICE agent, the other a woman carrying a protest sign which says “abolish ICE.”
PANEL 1
The ICE agent glares at the woman. The woman’s back is to him.
PANEL 2
The woman turns her head, spotting the ICE agent, who has angry body language.
PANEL 3
The ICE agent has drawn his gun and fires three times. The woman falls.
PANEL 4
The ICE agent speaks directly to us, pulling down his mask so we can see his gleeful expression. The woman’s corpse lies in the background.
ICE AGENT: Self-defense!
It’s devastating.
Two things I noticed once the initial shock of the first reading wore off:
1. There’s no chicken fat. No evil bunnies. No mouse dramas in the background. Just the blunt truth.
2. There’s no exaggeration for comedic effect. It’s just what’s going on in the real world.
Not directly related to the cartoon, but I noticed that the FBI is trying to keep the Minneapolis police out of the investigation. How evil do you have to be before the Minneapolis police, aka the people who thought standing on George Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes was fine, think you’re evil and corrupt? Has to be pretty bad.
Thank you, Dianne.
And yeah, I decided no chicken fat for this one – it just seemed wrong for this one.
Obviously the ICE agent killed all the chickens before the could produce fat.
“I hope it’s effective.”
“It’s devastating.”
Nope. It’s simply a ridiculous and deliberately malicious falsification of the actual event from a paranoid ultra-left wing perspective.
Dreidel
I’m trying to picture what this looks like without “ice” and “police” on the agent. My understanding is that they usually do not identify themselves this clearly.
I can see that the cartoon would probably be too confusing without the sorts of labels that real ICE agents are refusing to wear.
Kate: Actually, although there’s an odd lack of consistency – either they don’t have rules for how ICE agents dress, or they do have rules but the rules include many options – it’s not uncommon for ICE agents to wear things saying “ICE” and/or “Police,” including on helmets and arms, as in this photo. But they also sometimes don’t wear any identifying stuff at all, as you said.
Dreidel, I fixed your comment for you:
You’re welcome.
Well, in watching that video – as well as others from different angles and from the officer’s own body camera, here’s that I see:
The vehicle was clearly obstructing (even though not completely closing off) the road near what is clearly a group of law enforcement agents conducting an operation.
Officers drove up to the vehicle with sirens blaring and lights flashing.
Instead of getting out of the way (which, for those of you not U.S. residents, is what the sirens and lights are telling you to do), she does not move.
Seeing that she is not moving, officers go up to the car and tell her to get out. The officer who did the shooting circles around towards the front of the vehicle.
Instead of following the law enforcement officers’ directions and getting out, she backs up. The wheels are turned to the left, so the vehicle turns as she does so. Her wife yells at her to drive off.
She then starts forward, turning the wheel from left to right as she goes. At that point the officer, likely in fear of his life, starts firing, and was contacted by the vehicle as it drove past.
Yes, she did turn her wheels to the right as she moved forward. But by then it’s too late. The officer does not have time to wait to see if she does so. He had to make the decision and act before that. In any case he’s not looking at the wheels of the car.
This is a tragedy. It’s awful that this woman got shot and died. It’s horrible for her family, especially her child and I don’t wish this on anyone regardless of their politics. But that does not mean that the officer involved made an illegal decision and action.
Now, this is my analysis based on what I’ve seen so far. If more evidence comes out I’ll be entirely open to look at it and change my opinion. But that’s how I read what I’ve seen up to this point.
Chris, she probably wasn’t trying to run that officer over. But you have the luxury of knowing her entire background (or at least what the media has told us about her) and to be able to review various videos at leisure. The officer did not. He had to make a split second decision not knowing or seeing any of that.
“here’s that I see”
Did you see a riot?
Not true. When the sirens began, she rolled forward a little, turning her wheel, apparently about to leave. Then a car (almost certainly an ICE vehicle) drove in front of her car’s path, and she braked. Then she waved for cars to go around her. Then officers came up to her car to yell at her. But she was in the process of moving her car.
We have no way of knowing if he was in fear of his life – but he had no reason to be. I’ve been standing next to cars as they did the back-up-and-turn-to-leave maneuver; virtually any adult has been. It’s a reason to be cautious or to take a step or two back, but I’ve never mistaken it for someone about to run me over. And especially not if I could see and hear that the person was being calm and unthreatening, as he could. (“That’s fine dude. I’m not mad at you” is not something any reasonable person takes as a threat).
You say he didn’t have time to wait to see if she turns right – but she turned right before he fired, maybe even before he drew. He had a very clear view of her turning her wheel to the right before he fired, as is clearly visible in the video he took. When he fires the first shot, the car has already turned enough to the right that he’s to the left front of the vehicle – not in the vehicle’s direct path. Here’s a photo of the exact moment the first shot was fired – look where his feet are.
Regarding the claim that he was “contacted” by Good’s car, there is one distant, blurry video which makes it look that way. But the New York Times synced that video with a video with better resolution and angle, and it seems unlikely that the car touched him at all. At most it lightly brushed him (and even that’s doubtful). (It’s at about 2:45 in the video).
Finally, according to DHS regulations, he shouldn’t have placed himself in front of the car in the first place. And he did go out of his way to be in front; he began well behind her car, and deliberately walked around her car to get in front of it. I don’t know why he did that.
Amp:
True, but in those situations you’ve no reason to believe that the person behind the wheel is very hostile towards you.
From everything I’ve read that’s true, and it was careless of him. By regulation, he should not have done that. It may well be that this agent should be suspended or fired from ICE. That does not mean that he’s guilty of murder, though.
Neither did Ross, as can be seen and heard from the exchanges he had with her.
We’d need a criminal investigation and a prosecution to decide that one – which the Federal Government is blocking.
Great short video on the shooting of Good from Hank Green In a nutshell, if the shooting was justified, why is the administration telling easily refuted lies about what happened?
According to the videos released by the administration, Good’s last words were “It’s okay, I’m not mad.” The last words said to her were unprintable. Who was acting angry and hostile again?
I’ve seen multiple videos. Not one of them, including those released by the administration, show Ross being in any danger of anything other than having his feelings hurt.
No, but shooting an unarmed person who was moving away from him and no threat to him at all does.
This is also part of a pattern of ICE creating excuses to crack heads.
* Tell a vehicle to move on, while preventing that vehicle from moving on (in Good’s case, first driving in front of her, and then standing in front of her car). Then escalating because she did not comply with a command that it was impossible for her to comply with.
* Yelling contradictory commands (in Good’s case, “Get out of here!” and “Get out of the car!” – She couldn’t do both.). Then, when they try to comply with one of the commands, they escalate because they didn’t follow the other, contradictory command.
Other law enforement agencies occassionally do these things. And, I acknowledge, that in some cases it is lack of coordination, not bad faith. But, today, with ICE in Minneapolis, they are looking for excuses to round up peaceful protesters.
Another NYT video syncing up different videos to clarify what happened.
The only reason that Ross is not in jail awaiting trial for murder is the Republican’s soft on crime policies. I suppose it makes sense that the party currently headed by a convicted felon, pedophile, and rapist is fine with letting murderers and drug dealers wander the streets, but it’s not exactly safe. We need a Democratic administration to bring back the rule of law.
Ironically you could take the standard Republican rant about immigrant violence and just replace the word “immigrant” with “immigration enforcement agency” and it would make a lot more success.
Dianne:
Someone behind the wheel of a car is not unarmed. There is such a thing as vehicular homicide, after all. And if someone had come as close to me with a moving car as Ms. Good did I’d think they were trying to run me over as well. Especially after they’d been told multiple times to stop and get out of the car.
Kate:
In the videos I’ve watched and listened to I haven’t heard anyone yell “Get out of here!” at her. If you have a link to one please post it.
I’ve previously argued you could reframe prison abolition as “tough on crime.”
Our prisons are currently a hotbed of uncontrolled crime. Prison owners and contractors aren’t doing enough to stop it, so we need a new law to force prison owners to do more. I am proposing the Tough On Crime and Stopping Murder In Prisons Act. The Act requires that, if a crime is committed in a prison, the prison and its owners must have all of their assets seized and donated to unhoused black people. Additionally, if any companies have financial contracts with the prison, all of their assets and owners’ assets must also be seized.
To clarify, if a prison or contractor is privately owned, all shareholders are considered the “owners.” If a prison is publicly owned, the head of government is considered the “owner.”
Some critics have said that, if such a law were to pass, no one would be willing to have their company contract with a prison, making running a prison impossible. But that just sounds like making excuses for the pro-crime prison owners. Obviously anyone who opposes my law wants the Bad Guys to win!
@beth My immediate reaction is that someone will commit (or just confess to) some random crime, go to prison, and then litter, causing the act to be invoked and the prison’s owners assets seized and donated to unhoused black people who will now find themselves surrounded by real estate agents wanting to help them deal with their sudden wealth. Which is fine with me if you can find a way to control the realtors.
@Dianne:
Yep, the “act” is not actually a good-faith proposal to reform prisons: it’s a de facto ban on prisons framed as tough on crime by holding prisons to a wildly unrealistic standard.
Similarly, supporters of ICE do not actually want to be “tough on crime:” they want to ban non-white people from the country, and pretending to be “tough on crime” is their way of doing it.
I’m not as bothered by the shoot as you all seem to be. I don’t believe she was a terrorist, or that she even meant to injure the agent. I’d grant you that she was probably just trying to get away.
Kate said that the agent’s commands were contradictory, that they’d yelled both “Get out of here!” and “Get out of the car!” when she couldn’t do both. The problem is that there’s gap in time and a change in situation between those two commands: Initially, they wanted her to stop blocking the roadway with her vehicle. Then, after she refused, they were arresting her for having blocked the roadway, which was impeding their official duties.
And I think this is what progressives have forgotten over time: Civil disobedience has consequences. I’m not saying she should have been shot for being civilly disobedient, but she certainly should have been arrested for it. And that’s not new or unreasonable, it’s kind of the deal. MLK was arrested 29 times. He knew, as you all should know, that the average act of civil disobedience is against the law, and there are consequences attached to that. Sometimes you won’t get caught. Sometimes the cops will decline to arrest. Sometimes the DA won’t prosecute, but there’s that risk. And because of that risk, we think of civil disobedience as being brave. We don’t think that because it’s easy and consequence free.
There is nothing in law that gives you carte blanch to commit additional arrestable offenses if you’re only trying to get away from the cops after committing your first arrestable offense. Good was going to be arrested for obstructing an investigation. Then she racked up resisting arrest and fleeing. And then she was shot and killed in the middle of fleeing because the officer believed (or at least says he believed) that if he hadn’t, there was a significant risk of bodily injury to himself or others.
It doesn’t matter if she was only trying to get away, or where her tires were pointed, or whether she was a terrorist. It matters whether he thought he was in danger at that point in time, with the knowledge that he had. I’m not sure whether the shoot was good or not. I think it was close. She did hit him. I think it’s probably close enough that there isn’t much of a chance of conviction.
I want to take a step back and reassess something. When we’re growing up, our parents, teachers, everyone we love all tell us the same thing: Look both ways before crossing the road. They tell us this because they want us to be safe. They shouldn’t have to tell us that. Pedestrians have the right of way. A driver is probably going to be in a great deal of trouble if they hit a kid as a crosswalk. But they do, because often people make mistakes, and it’s better to be safe than dead.
Regardless of whether or not the shoot was good, Renee Good is dead.
It’s unlikely “she did hit him.” You shouldn’t state that as if it’s a known fact.
As for the rest, saying (paraphrased) “we should expect that protestors who break the law as part of civil disobedience to sometimes be arrested” – which is true – to excuse a woman being shot to death by an ICE agent who began to draw his gun before her car moved, and who went out of his way to put himself in front of her car, is a bad argument. The two things aren’t remotely comparable. True, Good was taking a risk of being arrested; also true, she shouldn’t have been shot to death, and the justifications for arresting her do not justify her being shot to death.
Right-wingers[*] always do this – defend cops creating the circumstances that justify shooting civilians.
Bad cops can always create circumstances in which they can claim to have been in fear of their lives. But doing that should not be legal. We can and should have higher expectations of law enforcement, and we shouldn’t create perverse incentives for law enforcement by making it legal for them to put themselves in danger (or “danger”) and then shoot people.
Yes, arguably Good should not have back-and-filled and tried to leave. (I think ICE, by creating a well-earned reputation for brutal treatment of their prisoners, has made it much more likely that people will try to leave, even when objectively it’s a bad idea.) But inarguably, she should not have been shot in the head for doing so.
( [*] I know, you say you’re not a right-winger, you just appear to be one on this site. Do me a favor: Could you please link to the right-wing site where we can read the dozens of comments you’ve written arguing against right-wing points from their left?)
” I’m not saying she should have been shot for being civilly disobedient, but she certainly should have been arrested for it.”
Who are you debating with here? Who’s saying “she shouldn’t have been arrested”?
Why are you so much more interested in the fact that she could have theoretically been arrested, as opposed to what actually happened, that she was shot and killed?
Watcher – I think he’s debating with me. And, while I think she obviously should not have been shot I also do say that she shouldn’t have been arrested either. They told her to leave, but there were other cars – ICE vehicles – with the right of way. They needlessly escalated when she could not follow their command immediately – because people on their team prevented her from doing so. That’s bullshit.
This is not about civil disobedience either. Most of the things protesters are being arrested for are not civil disobeidence, because they are not illegal. Blowing whistles, following vehicles, fliming, yelling insults – ALL are legal acts that people have been arrested for. We know this, because precious few people are actually being charged with anything, and even fewer are successfully indicted.
The claim that an agent yelled that originated with an eye witness, Emily Heller. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/07/minneapolis-shooting-immigration-crackdown As far as I know, it’s not heard on any video. What is on video is “Get out ‘ car. Get out of the [bleep] car. Get out of the car.”, said over the space of 3-4 seconds, where the apostrophe represents a sound like a t or d or a glottal stop. All sound to me like the same voice.
I think it highly likely that Heller misheard “get out ‘ car” as “get out of here”. Good might have too.
Corso.
I’ll get some side issues out of the way first. As per my previous comment, I don’t believe she was told to “get out of here”. I don’t agree that progressives have forgotten over time. I agree with Ampersand that Ross’ claimed belief that he was in danger at the time is not the only relevant factor when judging the situation, morally if not legally. If Ross had not gone against standard LEA training by placing himself in front of the vehicle there would have been no danger to anyone, and that this is also relevant. Based on the video Ampersand linked to, I don’t think he was hit at all. If he was, it was a glancing, low speed swipe. I think he shot in anger, not fear.
But outside of these side issues, I don’t think the progressives here would disagree with the substance of your comment. We all know that actions have consequences, and that those engaged in civil disobedience are liable to be punished for it. We know she was going to be arrested for obstruction, and that she was racking up further charges,
The rhetorical point of your comment seems to be to justify you not being “as bothered by the shoot as [we] all seem to be”, and so by implication, we shouldn’t be as bothered by it as we are. This isn’t an isolated incident. It took place against the backdrop of numerous civil-rights violations credibly alleged against ICE during its recent surge in Minnesota, including warrantless searches, arrests without probable cause, stops without reasonable suspicion, racial profiling, First Amendment retaliation, excessive use of force, pepper-spraying peaceful bystanders, and other acts of brutality. The Trump administration has lied about Good, and cut State LEA off from access to evidence, scene materials, and interviews that would be needed for an independent inquiry. (Why are there never any State’s rights advocates around when you need them?)
It bothers me that this does not seem to bother you as much as it bothers us.
I believe she did. There’s a camera angle that faced the front of Good’s car that I think has been kept off of progressive media, because if you slow it down, it’s pretty obvious that his leg gets bounced off the bumper pretty violently. Here, found it. You’re going to want to watch it once at normal speed, then slow it down, because it happens real fast, between 0:03 and 0:05. The department has also said the agent suffered internal bleeding, and Global reports confirming that with DHS.
Just for my curiosity… Had you seen that angle?
It’s not a justification of shooting her. It’s a justification to arrest her. The justification for shooting her was the officer’s perception of danger during her attempt to evade arrest. If she hadn’t done that, if all she’d done was fight the agent with her fists, you are absolutely right and I’d say so unqualified. But she didn’t. This is another thing I think progressives generally discount: Cars are deadly weapons, more people die in vehicular accidents every year than gun accidents. If the engine of the vehicle they’re standing in front of revs, I think people are going to be reasonably afraid for their life, just like if you point a gun at someone and cock the hammer.
I think this is a Rashomon effect. Is the agent putting himself in danger? Absolutely. Does that danger increase the likelihood that lethal force might be used? Absolutely. But isn’t that the job? We ask our police to well… police. They have to constantly insert themselves into danger. And while you can look at instances like this and squint to see some kind of entrapment or desire to escalate, I’m very sure that officer would have liked nothing more than for Good to have driven away initially, or to have been quietly arrested subsequently.
I think the idea is that if he hadn’t been in front of the car, Good would probably be alive. That’s true. You know what else is true? If Good hadn’t pressed the gas pedal while a guy was in front of her car, she’d probably be alive. When we talk about duty, or higher scrutiny… There’s nothing illegal in surrounding a vehicle you plan to arrest someone out of, it’s against their policy, which is there for officer safety. But an officer putting themselves into dangerous situations is not and can not be against the law because it is necessary for them to do so. At the point the decision was made to arrest Good, the goal became: “How do we facilitate this arrest in the most safe manner possible?” not “How do we be as safe as possible?” And failing to facilitate that arrest in the most safe way possible does not invalidate the arrest or allow people to use deadly force against the cops.
There’s an element of moral luck here, while I agree and say that Good probably was trying to escape, not trying to hit the agent, I also don’t think she was in a mindset to care very much if she did. If instead of bouncing off her bumper, if her tires hadn’t slipped on the ice, and if the agent was hit hard enough to be killed and died, would we really be saying that he deserved to die because he was arresting her the wrong way? Would she not be picking up a vehicular homicide charge of some color?
I disagree with your characterization, but it’s irrelevant because I’ll go one step further: The ICE agents didn’t need to give them the opportunity to drive away, they could have just arrested them initially. It’s not legal to deliberately block a roadway, nevermind deliberately block a roadway to impede police.
I’m not sure “most” is accurate, but even if it were… That’s not new. Again…. MLK was arrested 29 times, most of those charges didn’t stick either.
I was low-key fishing for someone to just straight up own the position that Good shouldn’t have faced any consequence, and I think you got most of the way there, but caged a little at the end. The position exists out there, just maybe not here. I want to say: That position is dangerous and going to get people killed. I understand why progressives, especially young progressives, believe that their civil disobedience can come without a whole lot of consequence, coming of age during the BLM riots which resulted in very few arrests, or January 6th, where everyone was pardoned, has probably stunted their expectations. But the reality exists, and if people continue to act as if they can do these things without consequences, cases like this are inevitable.
Wear the handcuffs proudly. Sue civilly. Live to see tomorrow.
Are you taking the position that the police didn’t frequently overreach during the civil rights movement? That their enforcement was generally proportional and lawful?
The civil rights movement is an excellent example for protesters. You seem to think it is also an excellent example for law enforcement. That is…WILD to me.
The BLM protests resulted in very few arrests because they were overwhelmingly peaceful and lawful. Both-sidesing them with the January 6th insurection is ridiculous. The levels of violence are not remotely comparable.
Black lives matter protests – over the course of several months, 15 to 26 million people protested in over 7,750 events in the BLM protests of 2020. 14 police officers were injured, 2 seriously, none killed.
January 6th – in a single day roughly 2-3 thousand people injured 138 officers, 15 seriously, one was killed on the day, and several died subsequently.
All numbers from Wikipedia.
There’s also the tiny matter of the rightousness of the cause. Police brutality is a serious problem in the U.S., which still needs to be addressed; whereas the election of 2020 was legitimate, and trying to overturn it was unjust.
“This is another thing I think progressives generally discount: Cars are deadly weapons”
Given that progressives have frequently been attacked by right wingers trying to run them over with cars, sometimes successfully, I think progressives actually understand this pretty damn well.
No…. Almost the opposite. Look, I think a lot of what ICE is doing is bullshit. I think the next election is going to matter, I think that history will view a lot of this very poorly. But that isn’t helped by people going out, doing stupid things, and getting shot.
In a lot of ways, what ICE is doing kind of mirrors a lot of the overreach during the civil rights movement. I’m saying the protesters should learn from their history and figure out a way to highlight those overreaches without getting killed. Everything Good did was morally defensible right up until she decided to resist arrest.
You know… That’ll teach me. I wasn’t trying to both sides it, I was going to stop at the BLM riots, and thought you might be more receptive to the point if there was an example you’d agree with. But ultimately, you’re right: There is no way you can compare the two where the riots weren’t worse. It was more disruptive, it lasted longer, more people died, more people were injured, and more property was damaged.
I have seen it. But it doesn’t show what you claim. Watching it frame by frame, in one frame it looks like he’s in front of the car and maybe getting hit – but in the next frame the car is passing between him and the camera’s vantage point, and only the car moved, not Ross. Meaning he was to the side of the car, not in front of it getting hit.
Now let me ask you – did you watch the first NYTimes video I linked? In that video, the Times synced the exact (blurry and distant) video you cited with a video that was closer and in better focus, from a different angle. (The syncing begins at around 2:30 in the NYT video). His front leg definitely didn’t “get bounced off the bumper pretty violently.”
“Internal bleeding” is a catch-all term that can refer to a serious injury or light bruising (or anywhere between). Trump’s DHS – which is hardly a reliable source, imo – claimed that the “internal bleeding” was in Ross’ torso, which doesn’t closely fit your mistaken impression that Ross was violently hit in the leg. No medical records were released, and the DHS has not clarified what they meant by “internal bleeding.” (A photo of Ross in the hospital was circulating last week, but it’s fake.)
Point of order: Shitty gun-happy cops like Ross aren’t just putting themselves into danger. They’re also putting everyone around them into danger. Good, understandably, lost control of her car after Ross needlessly shot her through the left side of her head (almost certainly with his second or third shot, when no one denies he wasn’t in front of Good’s car). Her car then crashed into another car, all the way across the street and down a stretch. It’s pure luck that Ross didn’t also kill a pedestrian when he shot Good.
Finally, I feel – maybe wrongly – that you think Good was deliberately blocking the roadway up until the moment she moved her car and was killed. It’s not important, but for the sake of accuracy: She had already begun to get out of the way. Shortly before she was shot, she began moving her car out of the way, then braked because an SUV (probably an ICE vehicle) drove in front of her car. Then she waves for the other cars to drive past. ICE agents ran to her car and one started trying to open her door, and that’s where most of the videos we’ve seen begin.
Protests are supposed to be disruptive. Being disruptive in the face if injustice is a virtue. It is also not, in and of itself, illegal.
The fact that BLM protests lasted longer doesn’t make them worse.
Proportionally January 6th was much, much more destructive of both property and human life than the BLM protests. Not taking the size and timescale into consideration is like when conservatives cite raw crime numbers in red vs. blue counties without taking the fucking population sizes into account. It’s the crime RATE that matters. Person for person, hour for hour, J6 was much more deadly and destructive than the BLM protests.
Sorry, I’m adding a bit more:
As I said earlier this thread, I’ve been standing next to many cars while they left where they were parked by doing a back-and-turn maneuver. Virtually every adult has been. If you feel you’re too close, you don’t shoot them, you take a step back. Suggesting doing a back-and-fill to steer clear of someone standing near your car is equivalent to someone cocking a gun and pointing it at a person is, frankly, unhinged.
Because there is no commonplace, nonaggressive maneuver that happens all the time which consists of cocking a gun and pointing it at someone. That’s happened to me only once in my life (with a real gun), and it was kind of terrifying and surreal, and nothing at all like the experience of standing next to a car doing a back and fill to get out of the place it’s parked while avoiding hitting things in the way.
From Ross’s POV (as documented by his camera), he could see she was turning the wheel to the right. He heard her say “That’s fine, dude. I’m not mad at you,” which is the opposite of threatening to kill him. No reasonable person would interpret that as “she is trying to run me down.”
If there were a way to prove it, I would bet a thousand dollars that Ross has more than once been standing next to or in front of a parked car which backed and filled to leave where it’s parked without hitting anything. I would bet another thousand that Ross has more than once been the driver in that situation.
He was breaking regulations, as you acknowledged. Breaking regulations is not part of the job.
How can anyone defend Ross or ICE in general at this point? Good was not doing anything illegal or anything that would provoke reasonable suspicion that she was doing something illegal. Her last words were to indicate that she was not upset or hostile to the ICE agent who shot her. Even if she had (accurately) called him a Nazi and was suspected of being the axe murderer of the century, she was fleeing. It’s not legal to shoot a fleeing suspect.
For that matter, if she was actually gunning the car towards the shooter, intent on running him down, wouldn’t shooting her leave the car moving on momentum with no one controlling it and therefore just as likely or more likely to kill the shooter. I would expect shooting out the tires to be more effective at actually stopping a car driven by an aggressive driver. Or putting another car in its way. Shooting the driver seems like an iffy strategy at best, even in the imaginary scenario where she was trying to run over him.
Finally, defending an agency that is committing terrorism against innocent people and kidnapping 5 year olds to use as hostages…seriously, that’s what you want to defend?
I strongly suspect that the “internal bleeding” was a bruise on his hand obtained when he broke the window of Good’s car. That is, that it was self-inflicted. Since he was not taken to the hospital or examined by a doctor at any point, one can assume that whatever it was (if it was not entirely fictional), it was not serious.
RonF:
No, he didn’t have to.
He had plenty of room to get out of the way, as both DOJ regulations and common sense dictate.
There is a reason shooting the driver of a moving vehicle is prohibited if the officer is able to evade the vehicle. Because…and I shouldn’t have to point this out…if you shoot the driver of a vehicle that is coming right at you, the vehicle is most likely going to continue coming right at you. Except now the driver has no ability to stop the vehicle from hitting you.
Whether the vehicle actually made contact with the officer almost doesn’t matter, because either answer disproves the justification for the shooting. If the car did hit him, then obviously shooting the driver did nothing to protect him from being hit–again, just as common sense says it wouldn’t. If the car didn’t hit him, then he was in no danger at all.
And of course, the car had literally just started moving, at an extremely slow speed. If his “split second decision” was to shoot the driver, when there was such minimal risk to his safety and when doing so creates more risk, not less (as proven by the fact that the car then became out of control and hit another), he is in no position being an officer of the law or even owning a gun in any capacity.
Corso:
Well, Good didn’t use deadly force against the cops, and I don’t see how any good faith observer could think ICE’s goal in this situation was to “facilitate this arrest in the most safe manner possible.” Going up to someone’s car and trying to open the door is not safe (nor was it legal in this circumstance). Shouting conflicting commands is not safe. Walking in front of a car is not safe. Shooting the driver of a moving car is not safe.
If the goal was to arrest her safely, they had the plates–she would have been easy to find and arrest later. Since her crimes at that point, if any, were mere nuisances and there was no evidence that she was a threat to them or anyone else, this is how they could have handled it.
But their goal was to make a show of force. To intimidate. To put her in her place. As the larger goal of ICE has been this entire time.
@Ron:
If he wasn’t ready to make those split second decisions and to prioritize the safety of the public over his own, then he shouldn’t be in law enforcement. The social contract is that law enforcement is given certain powers over other citizens in exchange for an implicit agreement that the law enforcement officials will put the citizens first and deal with danger. Police have to rush into active shooter situations.
Fire fighters have to enter burning buildings. Doctors have to treat infectious disease. If you can’t do that, don’t take the job. If you can’t stand beside a car that is moving away from you without being so scared that you shoot the driver, don’t take a job that puts you in a situation where you might need to do so. Not to mention, don’t run out in front of the car. Ross actively tried to bait Good into threatening him. She didn’t bite, so he shot her anyway and pretended that she had threatened him the way he was trying to provoke.
Incidentally, there was another ICE shooting today. They dragged some guy off the street, tried to pepper spray him (hitting each other, it looks like), then shot him and left his body in the street. No obvious provocation or even rationale. No attempt to give first aid or even get the body out of harm’s way. Are these really people you want to align yourself with?
Kidnapping young children. Shooting unarmed and non-threatening citizens. Arresting people without warrants or probable cause. Ignoring court orders. Can you even tell if I’m talking about ICE or the Iranian police or the geheim staatspoliezei? I cant. Because it applies to all of them.
ETA: Not fair of me: I don’t know for a certain fact that the Iranian police are kidnapping children and using them as hostages. Wouldn’t surprise me, but I don’t know it for sure.
Dianne: I’m sure we’ll know more about today’s shooting in a few days – the first day or two of news is often unreliable.
But, that said, I’ve read that ICE is saying the person was carrying a gun. And local government has said the person had a license to carry.
What Renee Good’s shooting has been reminding me of is Johnathan Daniels, a civil rights activist who was shot to death by a deputy sheriff in Alabama in 1965. Daniels and his friends were walking towards a store when the deputy sheriff, Tom Coleman, ordered them to stop. Coleman then pointed his shotgun at one of Daniels’ friends, a Black teenage girl; Daniels jumped to push the girl down, putting himself between her and Coleman, and Coleman shot him at close range. (MLK Jr called Daniels’ act “one of the most heroic Christian deeds of which I have heard.”)
Some parallels:
1) Both were shot to death at close range by lawmen.
2) Both shooters claimed to be in fear for their lives and acting in self-defense.
3) People defending the shooting said that if Daniels had just obeyed Coleman’s order and not moved then maybe Coleman wouldn’t have pulled the trigger.
4) The government in charge of the shooter – the local government in Coleman’s case, the feds in Ross’ – shielded the shooters from consequences.
(In Coleman’s case, there was a sham trial with an all-white jury and a biased judge. The judge did things like rush the trial so the other man Coleman shot, a priest who was still in the hospital, wouldn’t get a chance to testify).
History really does rhyme.
@Ampersand: I have seen several videos of the shooting. While they could be faked or altered, I doubt it. Assuming they weren’t, it was a flat out shooting of a man who was in no position to harm them. I’ve heard a claim he was carrying a gun, but if so it was not in his hand and guns are legal in the US, right? There’s just no excuse for it.
Further updates indicate that the victim was a nurse at the VA who worked in the ICU. Not a good look for ICE.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/19/iran-protesters-teenager-sexually-assaulted-in-custody-rights-group
@Daran: Horrific. So why isn’t it equally horrific in your mind when ICE does it?
Dianne, Daran can answer for himself, but unless I’ve misunderstood his views, he does find it horrific when ICE does it. He’s been arguing against Corso on this thread.
Dianne, yes, from what’s currently known Alex Pretti’s death is looking – at best – like a mob of ICE Agents murdering a man in a blind panic after one of them shouted “gun.” At worst, it was a flat-out public execution. That poor man.
And of course, DHS is rushing to claim Pretti was intending a mass shooting, and blocking local police from investigating the scene. I’ll be surprised if any of the murderers get more than a slap on the wrist, and probably not even that.
It depends on what state you’re in, but in Minnesota, it’s legal to carry a gun if you have a permit, like Pretti did. And in any case, even if the gun was on him, video seems to show that what was in his hand was his phone.
Schumer posted on X a couple of hours ago that Democrats will not vote for funding DHS. Hope he sticks by this.
@Daran: My apologies. I do think I misunderstood your position.
I have a CCL, although not in Minnesota. But I’ll bet the laws are similar. They include:
1) If you are approached by a law enforcement officer you must inform him you are armed.
2) You must surrender your firearm to a law enforcement officer upon demand.
For example: My wife and I are driving somewhere. She speeds, we get pulled over. I have to volunteer to the officer that I’m armed, and if he says “Let me have your gun” I say “Yes officer” and hand it over. He cannot confiscate it; he has to give it back after the ticket’s been written and he’s ready to leave. But he gets to keep it under his control while the encounter is going on.
I don’t know why this shooting happened, or whether the shooting was justified or not. And I really don’t think we can tell from the videos. A fully transparent investigation should be held so we all know what happened. I must say that I’m curious about how Mr. Pretti ended up entangled with the officers in the first place. Wrestling with cops with a firearm on your person is a really bad idea. Regardless of whether or not you have a CCL, the decision to actually carry a firearm in public means that you are taking on a fearsome and possibly fatal responsibility. It’s something to be done with careful consideration of how you are going to act in situations where its presence or use will affect your interactions with people – and, indeed, will affect the rest of your life. SOMEBODY made a serious error in judgement here. I’m not going to assume that it was Mr. Pretti. I’m not going to assume it wasn’t.
At Persuasion, which is usually one of those pround-to-be-centrist outfits bending over backwards to “both sides” everything, Sam Kahn summed up what the videos currently available tell us. It might be helpful to quote Kahn’s summary here:
What Kate wrote earlier about Good’s slaying also applies here: “If the shooting was justified, why is the administration telling easily refuted lies about what happened?”
RonF, after reading that summary Barry provided (I know you haven’t watched the videos), can you tell me at what point Alex would have had the time and presence of mind to let the officers who had attacked him unprovoked know he was carrying?
Because to me it seems possible that he did let them know he had the gun as he was being beaten on the street, and that’s when and why they murdered him.
@RonF: Man watching you shift the goalposts all over the place is just… exhausting.
Any reasonable observer can see that Alex Pretti was, first, a victim of ICE brutality before, second, being murdered in plain sight.
It should also be acknowledged that ICE is not “Law Enforcement”. They are immigration enforcement. They have no right to stop cars, arrest people for resisting arrest, arrest people for filming them, arrest people for yelling at them, arrest people for protesting their actions, or most of the things they’re arresting people for. They don’t enforce traffic laws or criminal laws. They only pick up people who have violated (in some Kafka-esque version of justice) immigration law as well as people who try to injure them or obstruct their lawful actions.
ICE isn’t law enforcement (outside of certain immigration laws) and nobody should treat them as if they were the police or federal law enforcement officers.
@Jacqueline: You are right, and I have seen an interesting interview by a former ICE director saying that as recently as ten years ago, ICE would never confront protesters, even if the protesters were directly protesting ICE actions – they would either ignore them or, in extreme cases, ask the local police to deal with them.
But it seems, whatever the legal situation, the current intent both within ICE and in Washington is to use ICE as a sort of official-paramilitary to unleash against communities that don’t support the government, to drum up violence and tension, and then use it to crack down. I don’t want to over-egg the comparison to the Gestapo since it’s not that close a fit, but there are many other authoritarian governments that have similar groups, although usually they’re not government agencies but instead semi-governmental militias, like the Basiji in Iran or the Red Guards in China. The good news is it isn’t all that clear in the American case study that this strategy actually works politically – it certainly works in that violence and tension increase, but it isn’t clear that the government actually reaps political capital from it.
It does seem that ICE has transformed culturally and institutionally in the time since Trump first became President. Presumably many of the current ICE agents joined under one of the Trump recruitments and are explicitly onboard with this idea of ICE as a semi-political militia, either because they agreed with it before they joined ICE, or because that’s how they were onboarded. Of course even under Biden and Obama, ICE had plenty of cowboys and a worryingly militarised culture, like many other American law enforcement organisations. But now that miltiarised, politicised culture is being very explicitly advocated and encouraged at every level, from ICE’s own internal trainings and policies (and probably its unofficial inculturations too) all the way to the White House.
I am in no way advocating that the shooting of Mr. Pretti was justified. This needs to be thoroughly investigated and the results of the investigation should be made public. If it turns out that the officer’s actions cannot be justified then he should be prosecuted.
Chris:
Summary quoted by Amp:
Right there. And then wait until such time as the officers either withdraw or give him permission to assist the woman.
Jacqueline:
They certainly do have the right to do some of those things.
18 USC 111:
Some of the actions you describe do not meet the criteria in section a). Others, such as stopping cars that are obstructing them, do. I’m curious as to what you mean by “arresting people who are resisting arrest”. If they are arresting someone and they resist, does that mean they have to let them go?
Here is 8 USC 1357, which gives details on the powers of ICE agents. Note especially this section:
Watcher:
Ten years ago ICE protesters generally didn’t attempt to interfere with ICE arrests or, if they actually tried to do so, the local police would honor requests. But now in Milwaukee a rather elaborate infrastructure has been organized to track ICE’s every movement and show up at as many arrests as possible and the local police have been explicitly ordered to NOT honor such requests.
In Illinois there used to be large crowds show up at the ICE facility in Bridgeview. Originally there were a number of physical confrontations because people were physically blocking the driveway in and out of the facility, screaming in officers’ ears, etc. Then the local policy was changed from non-assistance to sending the Illinois State Police to control the crowd. The crowds initially tried to push the ISP around. That’s a very bad idea. After losing the physical battle and suffering several arrests that stopped and ICE could operate normally again.
I think it’s at least interesting that ICE executed over 54,000 arrests in Texas from January 1 to October 15th without anything like this happening, yet in Minnesota over the same time period about 1,700 arrests have resulted in all this drama. Of course, in Texas the local authorities honor ICE detainers so ICE can just send 2 officers with a van to pick up someone at a jail or courthouse rather than having to send a dozen or more agents into a residential neighborhood. Maybe Gov. Walz is trying to draw attention away from the fraud scandal in his State.
Arrest data is from Appendix 1 of here.
The last time someone waited for ICE’s permission to assist a woman they had assaulted, they did not give it and she died while they held him back from helping her.
If murdering people in the streets, trying to run them over (Good wasn’t trying to run anyone over, but there are videos of ICE vehicles driving into crowds), assaulting them, and disappearing them isn’t enough to make you criticize ICE, what is?
What you mean is “without anyone documenting it and getting the attention of the media”. That’s a very different thing from not happening. Where are those 54,000 kidnapping victims now, I wonder. I am almost certain that ICE doesn’t know. They didn’t keep track of the children they trafficked in Trump 1 and I doubt that they are now.
“Ten years ago ICE protesters generally didn’t attempt to interfere with ICE arrests or, if they actually tried to do so, the local police would honor requests.”
You should read the piece, but generally speaking it didn’t back up your hypothesis that ICE has stayed the same and the world has become more hostile to them.
If nothing else, the current and recent past demonstrate that for resisting tyranny, don’t go to the gun fondlers, go to the decedents of Vikings armed with snowballs, shouting, middle fingers, and the occasional sandwich. All things ICE agents apparently can’t stand against. And, yes, the pushback in Minneapolis is making a coup less likely. How are they going to control the whole country if they can’t control one smallish city?
But, it is not being fully investigated. It will not be fully investigated by the federal government and the federal government is placing roadblocks to local officials trying to investigate.
CBP did not secure the scene, and prevented local officials from doing so until they got a warrant from a judge. CPB confiscated cell phones from witnesses and are refusing to share the data with local officials.
The administration continues to contend, with absolutely no evidence, that Mr. Pretti was intending to commit a mass shooting. We cannot accept that any investigation led by people working for these lying officials will be fair and impartial. Six honest government officials have already resigned in protest because they were ordered to do things that they considered to be unethical in the wake of the shooting of Good.
The officers have not been identified, or placed on administrative leave as is normal practice.
None of this is normal, Ron. But, please do continue to focus on how it would all be o.k. if Petti had randomly announced that he had a gun in that charged atmosphere.
“How are they going to control the whole country if they can’t control one smallish city?”
The same way the Nazis did, by removing from office every official who insists on complying with the law and doing their job, and replacing them with people who will do as they are told, until every state institution is completely under their control.
Then it will be a simple matter to bring Minnesota to heal. Just execute 500 people per day until the protests stop.
Hmm…that may be why they’ve intensified their efforts to get people in civil service jobs to quit lately. That’s been an ongoing thing since January 2025, but they’ve picked it up lately.
That seems to have worked in Iran.
They can probably get ICE to do it: the ICE recruits are basically a bunch of thugs. But can they get the military to back them up when the national guard comes in and gets in a shooting war with ICE? Or the NYPD, which is larget then many countries’ militaries. If they can control the military then, yes, that would work. And they have to do it without the dubious aid of Trump, who is too far gone in dementia to conspire at this point. If not, it would end with everyone in the administration in prison. Miller et al may look at the situation and decide it’s too risky.
There are still enough people doing their job and complying with the law, that removing them requires processes to be followed, which takes time. There will eventually come a time when process is no longer needed. The remaining hold-outs can then be dismissed en mass by fiat, arrested, or just disappeared, as necessary.
I don’t doubt that ICE, whatever ICE turns into, or another organisation staffed by former ICE agents, will act as the regime’s Sturmabteilung.
Maybe. Replace the top brass with accolytes. Tell the rank and file they are dealing with a terrorist insurgency in a different part of the country from where they come.
Another approach to neutralising forces you can’t control: Freeze their bank accounts. How long do you think NYPD would be able to hold out without pay or supplies?
I don’t think he is in control now, if he ever was.
Dianne:
If someone had driven that close to me after being told to stop I’d have thought they were trying to run me over.
An arrest is not a kidnapping.
I’m pretty certain that ICE knows exactly were everyone they’ve arrested is from the time they were arrested to the time they were either jailed or released.
ICE trafficked children? That’s a new one. And frankly absurd.
A coup? You’re starting to sound pretty far out there, Dianne. No one’s looking for a coup. What they’re looking for is to enforce Federal immigration law that was passed by a Democrat Congress and signed by a Democrat President and is being enforced with minimal issues in just about every city except Minneapolis.
Kate:
That’s for damn sure. I am not happy with how this is being handled; this HAS to be opened up for public scrutiny.
But in the larger sense, ICE’s operations ARE normal just about everywhere but Minnesota, and Governor Walz and Mayor Frey are taking every step they can to keep it that way. They could stop this tomorrow by turning over illegal immigrants at courthouses and jails, stop with the incendiary rhetoric, and have the local cops assist with crowd control. But they won’t, because attempting to block Federal law enforcement is the hill they’re willing for other people to die on.
Federal immigration law MUST be enforced. Local and State politicians and mob action CANNOT be allowed to stop it. If a way forward to enforce the law can be found through negotiation, great. But if not then Trump should take whatever legal steps are available, whether that’s Federalizing the Minnesota National Guard or invoking the Insurrection act (I’m not clear as to whether he has to do the latter to do the former or not).
OK Ron let’s play your game. You said:
“That’s for damn sure. I am not happy with how this is being handled; this HAS to be opened up for public scrutiny.”
So, what would this scrutiny look like? How does what you are asking for compare to what is actually happening right now? How do you feel about the comparison between the scrutiny you are advocating, and the scrutiny that actually exists? How likely do you think it is that you’ll get what you’re asking for re: public scrutiny?
I think that the FBI should investigate this and do an analysis of whatever evidence there is. They should then hand that over to the relevant Federal prosecutorial official. If said official decides to prosecute they convene a grand jury and seek an indictment. If they decide to not prosecute they show what they were given and publicly explain why they decided not to prosecute.
I doubt that’s going to happen. Which, based on my experience here in the Chicago area, doesn’t differentiate Democrats from Republicans. Don’t mistake my insistence on immigration law being enforced with blessing everything that every ICE agent has done in pursuit thereof or everything that the Trump administration is doing.
re: ICE’s expanding role – I see now, for some reason, ICE agents are going to be providing diplomatic protection for American officials attending the Winter Olympics in Italy. This seems so completely outside of ICE’s immigration enforcement brief as to be totally ridiculous and a clear sign that, whatever ICE’s constitutional or legal role, it seems to be being turned into the praetorian guard/tonton macoute/NKVD/whatever metaphor you prefer for the Trump regime, as the law enforcement agency that’s most aligned with far right values (and given what we know of other law enforcement agencies’ internal cultures, that’s really saying something).
“I doubt that’s going to happen. Which, based on my experience here in the Chicago area, doesn’t differentiate Democrats from Republicans.”
Yes, damn those pesky Democrats preventing the investigation of Pretti’s death by the FBI. I’m so glad the Democrats are getting called out. If only more people had your courage, Ron, in speaking out against the Democrats – maybe with enough criticism of the Democrats, these killings would be stopped!
Not at the expense of our civil liberties.
Reasonable suspiscion IS REQUIRED BY LAW to stop people. Probable cause IS REQUIRED BY LAW to detain people. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt IS REQURIED BY LAW convict people. ICE and CBP are breaking these rules left and right.
Step away from the Fox News, Ron. It’s rotting your brain.
RonF:
Jesus Christ. You’d wait for “permission” to assist a woman who was just illegally assaulted…from the people who just illegally assaulted her?
No, it isn’t. It was well documented and talked about on this blog during the family separation policy. You were here when that happened. You’d just rather not remember it.
Incredibly strange lie to tell given the abuses that have been well documented elsewhere.
Kash Patel’s FBI? Really? Why not the local police?
America’s own Black and Tans, Vlakplaas, or Interahamwe.
Sure, that’s good too.
TW: Discussion of child abuse.
Actually, it’s a very old one. It started in Trump I. There was at least one report of children being taken for “a shower” and never being seen again. I guess Trump’s goons aren’t too imaginative and went with an old standard.
Biden’s administration attempted to find and reunite children who were missing after the end of the Trump’s misrule and largely failed because there were just no records. They literally took children and disappeared them. The best outcome is that they were sold for adoption to fundamentalists. Yeah, that’s the best outcome.
Why? Immigrants are less likely to use government services and commit crimes. Why not loosen the immigration laws back to, say, the standards of the 19th century but without the racism?
So you see state and local governments enforcing their laws and attempting to stop violent mobs taking over their cities as the enemy. Good to know.
ICE “enforcing immigration law”
[Link fixed –&]
RonF:
I suppose if you ignore all the evidence that she was trying to leave and that she likely didn’t even see him as he had just placed himself in front of her vehicle, that could make sense.
Would you shoot her though, or would you try to move out of the way? Because as I explained earlier, one of those options gives you a much higher chance of avoiding being hit by the vehicle.
And would you continue shooting even after you are on the side of the vehicle and out of the path entirely, as Ross did?
Dianne, that link isn’t working for me. Was this the story?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2026/01/26/ice-detained-us-citizens-minnesota-arrests/88304880007/
@Chris: Yep. Sorry about my terrible linking skills.
Ron:
That’s exactly what the Jan 6 rioters were looking for,.
“Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted.
This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law. ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence…”
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171.10.0_1.pdf
Edited to add:
“[ICE] plainly disregarded the unambiguous terms of this Court’s Release Order … [ICE] blatantly disregarded this Court’s Order … This was not a misunderstanding or lack of clarity; it was knowing and purposeful.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.588966/gov.uscourts.njd.588966.24.0.pdf
And many others (See https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/30/ice-immigration-court-orders-00757894 ) ICE is probably the most lawless federal agency in US history. Do you care about the rule of law, Ron? Do you really?