Explaining the right to shoot in an ICE way

www.americanthinker.com

Let’s say two men engage in a verbal dispute having approached each other from opposite directions on a sidewalk. What subsequently occurred is captured on a residential camera.

Man A blocks the forward progress of Man B as the discussion continues. B asks A to stop blocking his egress. Man A—with no obvious reason—suddenly pulls out a gun and raises it towards Man B as if to shoot him. Obviously in a panic to meet the life-ending threat now confronting him, Man B reacts instinctively. Drawing his own weapon, Man B quickly fires three rounds at Man A, killing him.

Assuming no other issues are involved and both men had a legal right to carry guns, is Man B guilty of a criminal act? If you were Man B, would you have done anything differently?

Keeping in mind your responses to the above, would your answers change were it revealed Man B, whom man A knew had just completed a job in the neighborhood, was well aware that others, working in his same capacity in nearby neighborhoods, had experienced similar verbal confrontations with local residents—some of which had ultimately turned violent—thus causing Man B to act in a heightened state of “live or die” consciousness?

Let us now alter a few aspects of this scenario to explain what happened in an actual incident involving real players and the reason for the confrontation.

Man A above is actually 37-year old mother of three—Renee Nicole Good. She was driving a car in a residential area in which she did not live. The only reason she was there was that all morning she had been stalking Man B—which actually was a group of ICE agents. She had been waiting for the right moment to confront one of them directly.

Why would this mother do so? While it has been alleged she was a paid anti-ICE protester, those close to her claim she was not an activist. However, reports do indicate she had linked up with local “ICE watch” groups committed to documenting and disrupting that agency’s activities.

This incident occurred on a residential street in southern Minneapolis. The ICE group had completed its enforcement job, but one of their vehicles had become stuck in the snow. As they awaited assistance, a horn blared and a whistle was blown as if intended as a signal. Suddenly, the ICE group found itself surrounded by protesters blocking any further passage by it down the street. The protesters included Good, who had stopped her vehicle diagonally across the middle of that street to assist in the blocking effort.

A three-minute video filmed from a nearby home shows Good was approached by agents and told to move her vehicle. It resulted in a short conversation in which it appears she sought verbally to disrupt the departure of ICE agents. In a show of defiance, she suggested they drive around her. It was then demanded that she exit her car.

As three ICE agents approached Good, still failing to comply with ICE orders, appears to have been egged on by her wife Becca, standing outside the vehicle to video record everything, who shouted “Drive, baby, drive!” By this time, one agent had his hand on the driver side door and Good, perhaps encouraged by the shouts of Becca, suddenly put her car into reverse. Then, just as suddenly and, who knows, perhaps in an effort to shake the agent on her door off, she shifted gears, appearing to head straight for the agent that was still in front of her.

No one will conclusively know whether Good intended to run that second agent over but it is clear he definitely thought so. Jumping out of the way, he simultaneously grabbed his weapon and fired at her. She was struck in the head and later died.

The mainstream media and leftist politicians immediately put their spin on news of the shooting, suggesting ICE was totally at fault and Good was totally innocent. Unsurprisingly, among such politicians was Democrat governor Tim Walz. He commented: “What we’re seeing is the consequences of governance designed to generate fear, headlines and conflict. It’s governing by reality TV, and today that recklessness cost someone their life. Now we hear more political rhetoric. Enough. Enough is enough.”

Whether seeking to heighten that fear, Walz ordered the state’s National Guard unit to support local law enforcement without explaining specifically why. Another thing we will not hear Walz mention is that while he criticizes ICE for its action in the shooting, he fails to explain he signed off on a 2020 Minnesota law allowing police officers to use deadly force against a vehicle accelerating towards them.

This incident should never have happened. But it was Good’s own foolishness in putting herself in a dangerous situation that turned what up to that point in time had been a non-violent and completed ICE enforcement mission into a tragically violent one. As one journalist has observed, “When someone accelerates a vehicle toward law enforcement, the calculus changes in an instant.”

The shooting of Good is not too dissimilar from the scenario presented at the outset of this op-ed. It was her decision alone opting voluntarily to put herself unnecessarily in harm’s way and to weaponize her car against ICE agents. Just like Man B had every right to defend himself from Man A’s possible intention to kill when he drew his gun, the ICE agent had every right—as Walz’s law acknowledges—to defend himself against an anti-ICE disrupter gone wild.

ChatGPT

Image generated by ChatGPT.