I too continue to be amazed at progressives inability to assess threat in any meaningful way. I am convinced the lower the T levels, the more you overestimate your ability to walk away unscathed. I cannot imagine some jacked ex-marine doing what she did to an armed man.
Particularly when they engage in this sort of behavior towards people they themselves claim are hyperviolent fascists. I can't understand the disconnect.
"I'm gonna go kick a grizzly bear cub right in front of its mother."
It can only be fantasy. They immerse in their fictions, and struggle to escape. They also rely heavily on societal structures they themselves work to dismantle. High trust is rare, and many women in Western nations take it for granted. No woman in Saudi Arabia would speak to a law enforcement officer as she did. They have an expectation of civility they are working hard to destroy.
We are surely now learning universal suffrage is not survivable.
I don't think it's the lower "T" levels. It's culture. Hunter Gatherer women don't taunt men in that way. But the majority of liberal American women have grown up thinking somehow they can physically provoke, or even hit men, and that the police will back them up. But it's actually not true. Many American women are arrested for physical domestic assault on their partners, and I'm one of those male partners whose female partner was once jailed for physical assault on me.
These people wear their self-righteousness like armor, thinking it will protect them from all negative outcomes. Thinking that someone would be an awful, hideous Nazi for shooting you does not prevent them from actually shooting you.
Part of it could be the way women (especially liberal white women) have been taught that they are invulnerable, and nobody will possibly dare to touch them, no matter what they do. Little boys are taught "You don't hit girls" and that's totally reasonable, considering the strength differences; but now it's gone so much farther. Now you can't even say a bad word to a female or you'll be cancelled at best.
At least this has been the case recently, in their own world where those rules apply-- but now they're beginning to see that those rules aren't in force so much any more.
They have been teaching men, especially white men, and cops, and have been convinced by their handlers, that in our Western culture, women won't be mishandled, harmed, hurt, killed, held responsible (Me Too), for their behaviors. This brainwashing has been used by the groups training them, and throwing them onto the "protest lines", to make them believe that their special status as women protects them from harm, making them the Frontline of the Resistance Movement, whether it's for George Floyd, Palestine, Gaza, Me Too, the Trans Movement, Venezuela, Ukraine, blah, blah. The handlers know that law enforcement, for many reasons, is going to be more reluctant to use force against women because of how it looks in the media, even though we've had proof since Vietnam that women and children can be dangerous weapons in guerrilla warfare.
Exactly. It's a brilliant propaganda ploy, because the human race is programmed by evolution to protect the women. It's been hilarious to see these antifa young ladies out there hitting and punching, then so shocked when they get hit in return and BOOM, taken down instantly. Same for these middle-aged Karens, as they get taken down too. If women can hit and punch, they can get punched right back. Soon that message is going to percolate thru the lefties, and we'll see what they do.
Agreed. Once they discover that there's no one to protect them, the suburban women's feminine instincts will kick in and they'll stop taking risks for the cause. The male protesters will be expected to step to the forefront.
From Law professor David McGrogan’s brilliant Substack:
“We are governed by a class of people who prefer to live in a narrative world than the real one; who prefer to inhabit the map rather than the territory; who prefer to model and forecast rather than think; and who prefer Baudrillardian simulacra to the truth.”
You need to take a look at what this fellow has to say.
One more data point to prove that when your entire worldview is based on narratives that deliberately reject reality, it’s simply impossible to make all the parts mesh together enough to accomplish anything important, including your own goals.
She wasn't acting on behalf of anyone but herself. She and her fuck buddy were just getting off on the thrills of bullying the cops and feeling tough and righteous, in the mistaken assumption that they would pay no price for their fun. Fuck Buddy was doing her butch-dyke best impression of Clint Eastwood and having a grand old time.
Then reality caught up with them, and it's just not FAIR!
The incident has a strange, twisted aspect. Ms Good died doing what she greatly enjoyed doing and died without the long suffering & heavy expense associated with normal deaths.
True. And now we'll have to put up with her fuck buddy's plaintive yowling and mewling in exaggerated outrage. For crybullies, it's the gift that keeps on giving.
The tactic was originated in the drug trade, getting kids to carry because they were prosecuted in juvenile court.
Women are less likely to be prosecuted than men, and if convicted do less time. Also makes for more sympathy (just a soccer mom, etc.) Plus the AWFLs are more gullible and easier to recruit.
The term "Social Justice Warrior" is more than hyperbole.
50+ years of Marxists long-marching through our government schools has successfully replaced classical instruction in critical thinking with the collective fantasy that all boys and girls are little Skywalkers and Amidalas, whose chief value is battling the racism, sexism, globular warmening, inequity, and capitalism of an Evil Empire (all the while being funded by a dead ringer for Palpatine, and electing people like Count Dooku mayors).
The de-emphasizing of critical thinking helps make it improbable for any "are we the baddies?" epiphany to occur among the deluded.
And, to paraphrase Orwell brutally, it's always the chicks who take to this delusion with "hold our beer."
(Side question: Are you still an AWFL if Momma has to pay all your bills?)
Same with shoplifting. In blue state shopping malls, gangs of teenagers and younger kids simply walk into stores and steal openly. Employees are forbidden to stop them and cautioned against even questioning them, lest they receive a knife in the solar plexus. The security guards are also under the same constraints. Only police are able to stop them, and they're reluctant to make arrests because the courts will simply let the offenders go back into the custody of their parents, who are often profiting from the shoplifters by fencing the stolen goods for them. It's outrageous.
Well, maybe they have had puberty blockers to rid themselves of the patriarchal conceit of their birth assigned gender? In which case that particular gene pool has reached an impassable dam.
I think the most important point the professor makes is that the victim - the fat girl - was having fun. These protesters are thoroughly enjoying themselves. The police are out doing a hard job and we allow a bunch of rejects to just fuck everything up.
More of them are going to get killed . Up the ante, make it less fun.
Perhaps this little game could be brought to an end if the ICE put bumper bars on their SUVs. Retarded AWFL blocking your passage? Buldoze her to one side and continue on your way. Having her nice shiny middle-class suburban ride (with heated seats and sunroof) all crumpled up on one side would put an end to the fun really fast. Having to pay the insurance deductible would add insult to injury.
BM is 100% correct. That would definitely change their behavior.
I thought to myself that they would have to kill many more of the protesters. To make a point, I think it would be in the hundreds. But then it occurred to me that would make people upset. It would be unpopular. It could actually be a trigger to more action. But bashing the shit out their vehicle would be absolutely perfect. In a way it’s kind of funny. Mind you not to the person whose vehicle gets banged up, I hope the humour would be lost on them.
One or two dead protesters, and a few more injured when things get physical, will be enough to deter most of the fair-weather SJ warriors. This is especially true for the women, who are risk-averse by nature. I noticed how much the Kyle Rittenhouse incident seemed to calm things down during the Summer of Floyd.
No loss for protesters, but I've always felt bad for the innocent businesses, homeowners, and other property owners who are in the way. People always figure the insurance companies pay for the loss when fires, bricks, looting, and overall destruction take place, but if you look at your auto or home insurance policy, you'll notice clauses that state the coverage doesn't pay for loss during a riot, war, protest, insurrection, etc. My parents both worked for a large insurance company, so I learned to read the entire policy early on in life.
Excellent point. It points up the depraved indifference of the leftwing mayor's such as Frey, who did little or nothing to stop the destruction of small businesses in the St George (Floyd) riots.
A fellow poster named Bizarro Man has the solution.
Simple: have bash bars on the front of the ICE police vehicles and push the protesters vehicles out of the way. Not a giant hit, just a firm shove so as no one gets hurt. But the vehicle gets scraped and dented.
Our author, the goodly professor, said something that had not occurred to me : the girl in question, she who got shot, was having fun.
It never occurred to me; These people are having jolly good fun.
The police need a tactic to up the ante. Tada: Nobody wants $5000 damage them to their vehicle. The ram bars and the willingness to use them would instantly trump (haha) their tactic of blocking the road with their cars.
It’s a winner, and you could use some highway traffic act law as justification. That would infuriate the left.
What I don’t get is, do they even know whom they are protecting in every case, or do they just block all ICE activity that they can? I could see maybe trying to protect a nice family of visa over-stayers, but what if ICE is trying to arrest armed gang members? These little games could get a lot more people killed.
It is so strange to see this in a different context. For two days it’s been legal briefs, SCOTUS precedents comparison of photos, sections of law, and sadness about the young orphan, despite Mom’s choices. Somehow it’s Nazism flavor in Deutschland.
Parallels exist with Oxford, Mississippi, in 1962. Kennedy sent federal marshals to enforce the admission of James Meredith to Ole Miss. Riots followed, and the marshals received no protection from Governor Ross Barnett. The governor activated the National Guard. Kennedy quickly federalized the Mississippi National Guard. He made it clear to the governor that the guard was under federal control ( I hope Tampon Tim understands this)and flew in the 101st Airborne Division. Kennedy had 30,000 troops on the ground in a city with fewer people. The message was clear. Local authorities have an obligation to aid federal law enforcement. FEDERAL LAW IS SUPREME. The alternative? FAFO
Walz is behaving no differently than those southern governors complaining about "outside agitators" and asserting, "We know how to take care of our own."
And let's not forget President Eisenhower sending in the same unit to Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the black children integrating the schools. A proud moment in our history.
I agree with your read of the scenario of idiots spending their days preventing the Police from law enforcement. Because I follow a government attorney who pointed out the angles of the tires at 3 different points as a fact of the case, I follow his reasoning. He also posted several precedents from SCOTUS decisions, and posted the guidelines of ICE & DHS and local police insofar as MVC.
Speaking of the High Court, the case of federalizing the National Guard for Federal Police’s safety has been in our court system for months with the Supreme Court giving a quick ruling to the Commander in Chief that he needs to call in the regular military and call on the Insurrection Act.((which it is-Federal law has been annuled. The NG can only be called if the military is unable to keep the local laws. They admitted that without reading each side’s briefs, they were not confident in the holding. It’s a very unpopular step for the President to take. I see he is using Border Patrol.
I think that arrest warrants should be issued to anyone interfering with police, but any governor allowing a sanctuary city or state lacks common sense to consider control of his populace. Sorry for the long response.
Yes, the much more important connection is to the NGO network. Real investigation needs to occur here, to discover, which orgs were paying them - there's no way they were doing this for free. There is some speculation that in this particular case, the money derives not just from an NGO, but prior to that, from the state of Minnesota. If proven true, it would be momentus to display to the world that governor Tim Walz is responsible for this incident.
There is apparently a "real" investigation underway, but since it is being conducted by the FBI, it will trusted by very few. I don't mean to paint the FBI with a broad brush; there are certainly plenty of good people there, but at the management level it is corrupt.
"Cooperation Cannon River receives money from the Tide[s] Foundation, for example, which is funded by the Open Society Foundation. In short: 🚨 George Soros."
"Tides Foundation is the Soros 'charity' that funded much of the Antifa BLM protests in 2020. (Besides many other crappy things.) USAID was one of Tides' primary funders."
Yet again, we have a woman desperate to escape the normal demands of motherhood and she'd finally found a partner who'd direct her in how to do that most spectacularly.
Note the year when she was in NYC documenting the homeless according to this photographer. Her third child--now a double orphan because of cosmic misfortune of parentage--must have been a baby when she decided to go weep over and feed strangers.
I read also, an unsubstantiated report that Good lost custody of her two older children to their father because her lesbian squeeze had been abusing them. Her third child had no living father to protect him and she and Becca took him off to Canada after Trump was elected before settling in the US again but in a state none of the three of them had ties to.
If I told you what I *really* feel about these women we'd all get banned here.
Her death was NOT a tragedy, except for the damage she caused to the ICE agent who was forced to defend himself against her malicious intent, and the child she had undoubtedly influenced with her poisonous ideology. Her death was a blessing, otherwise.
She's been doing activism for quite a while. I thought this post by Andy Ngo was interesting, although I wouldn't pin a whole lot on the "terrorism" label, which might've been ironic or joking or something.
Unfortunately her incredibly stupid death has made her a martyr to the lefties, so really she was quite the Useful Idiot, in the classic sense. I get so tired of these entitled women who don't seem to have any idea that blockading a police action during a volatile time could possibly be anything but a fabulous TikTok video.
Well, I guess it did turn out to be a fabulous TikTok video, but I doubt Good planned on it going the way it did. So smug and clueless! No idea that anyone would ever possibly harm them, because women are not allowed to be harmed, ever, no matter what they do.
Well, they're able to manufacture martyrs like they got a factory rolling 24/7 but it's the remarkable idiocy of some voices on the right determined to give comfort to the enemy that's the bigger problem.
Good was just a seriously fucked-up loser which is the prime sort to be sucked into any sort of cult.
'The goal here is pretty clearly to enlist dumb women to obstruct the police in dangerous ways, with the hope of provoking a violent response that party organisations can exploit for further activism and propaganda.'
Unchecked aggressions inevitably leads to greater numbers of aggressions and to aggressions that are more severe.
Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature could have predicted that these unchecked anti-ICE aggressions would lead to escalated action on both sides.
You can't follow a bear (or a dog or a cat or a horse or a raccoon) around all day, poking it with a sharp stick, and not expecting it to turn on you at some point.
Wish he could have shot her in the arm or something, rather than a kill shot. So she wouldn't have become a martyr. But if it hadn't been her, it would have been another one like her, so the situation really wasn't avoidable.
Yes. It's a formula. There's a reason they put women out front.
These protesters and obstructionists don’t just show up because they saw the news coverage and were morally compelled to act, they are always funded, planned, organized by an activist organizations. An organization tied to one or more leftist nonprofits that receives its funding from Soros, China etc.
I watched a video yesterday where Laura Ingraham asked a protester, “Don’t you have a job?” To which the protester replied, “I’m getting paid right now.” No shit!
Although the truth has come out about this incident the commie Dems always count on the first version being the one people remember. Thus their rush to the microphones.
They are not wrong on this as most commie Dem supporters have the attention span of a gnat
Yet all of these liberals think they are non-violent and hate testosterone and the patriarchy, and aggression. In reality, they are seething, angry, and full of hate that they enjoy dumping on others.
"Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature could have predicted that these unchecked anti-ICE aggressions would lead to escalated action on both sides."
Many people insist that is the entire point. Some SJW takes one for the team, becomes a martyr, and is used to beat the other side over the head. Saw it with George Floyd, saw it (uncharacteristically) with Charlie Kirk. The weakness of this battle plan is social fatigue. A majority of America is sick of these fake martyrs and their astroturf cheer squads. I predict the left is going to feel the same wave of "she shouldna been there" from Americans that they themselves cynically launched at Ashli Babbitt.
At the street level, one side considers this "resistance" or even "antics," but the reality is that they are committing crimes by attempting to impede federal officers in the performance of their duties. The most serious part of the situation is thus overlooked and normalized as some kind of civic duty. None--not one--of these Karens has ever so much as taken a punch before, and they have no clue how much danger they are putting themselves in. At least a bully can comprehend that sometimes his victims fight back. This is far more dangerous than people realize.
That the men around her car are armed seems not to have registered with Renee Good. That a possible outcome of a confrontation with armed individuals is death or disability appears to be something she could not even imagine.
These last 6 months I’ve been explaining to my daughter (who will soon leave for college), that history has taught us that revolutions from young ladies don’t end well. I talked about the young women involved in Mao’s Red Army (I describe them as being basically dangerous Karen’s), then I moved to the Russia and Stalin and the Bolshevik’s. In both cases the young women involved were killed or imprisoned later by the very people they supported so vehemently earlier. Then my Persian friend reminded me that Iran did exactly the same thing. And I reminded her that the women did all of this- to support a man (even though they were avowed feminists). Here we have exactly the same system, and they are supporting an other man- Soros/Reid Hoffman.
The thing you learn from watching their content but also from talking to some people, is that a lot of them are kind of childish and have no real conception of what they're doing. some of them appear to think they're in some kind of hero role in a film, others that this just kind of a fun game, a recreation to pass the time. Modern society is very comfortable and doesn't provide many opportunities for people to appreciate objective risks.
I've noticed that they tend to mistake government mollycoddling and exploitative permissiveness as weakness. The J6 Capitol meanderers found out that the government is essentially omnipotent and ruthlessly cruel when people operate outside its Overton playground.
One of the most profound problems in modern society is simple boredom.
Millions with little creative or useful to do crave excitement in their lives—the more heroic they imagine it is, the more emotionally fulfilled they feel.
So they imagine themselves heroes in a Star Wars drama taking on the Imperial storm troopers (ICE) and fighting the evil empire!
Even if they die, they imagine that theirs is a glorious death. Maybe Hollywood will make a movie about their sacrifice!
What’s the old proverb about idle hands being the playthings of the devil?
Modernity is the victim of its own comfortable success. Boredom is its byproduct.
I’ve had this thought too that much evil begins in boredom. A good example is the story of the Cambridge Five. Guy Burgess especially seems to have betrayed his country for the excitement of it all.
Exactly so -- it isn't real to them. It's a play, a video, a movie, in which they are the victorious hero. I don't think these people, especially these middle-aged white liberal women, have any real concept that they can do anything wrong, or that there will be consequences.
Explains the abundance of cosseted old boomers at some of these protests. Perhaps the most fortunate generation in history so far. They are always clueless or robotic when questioned.
Some of the stupidity you and others remark on is caused by computer viruses. I agree with you that not all of it is symptomatic of mental illness, but perhaps we can all see that the case of Renee Good evinces cogent indication of mental virus infection and lack of resistance to it.
I read an interesting analysis in the Free Press yesterday, regarding this event. I have to admit, it made plenty of sense to me. First, a law enforcement officer should probably never put themselves in front of a vehicle being driven by a hostile. The unknown state of mind of the driver is unpredictable and possibly reckless. As such the officers body will be in great danger should the driver accelerate. Second, shooting into a moving vehicle is a bad idea. This is a prime example...In this case, the SUV hit another parked car, the best result you could hope for. It could have been much worse.
With this said, the person at fault in this case is the lady in the SUV and her partner. Intentionally harassing law enforcement and blocking their efforts should not be considered a game. This created a dangerous situation and now this woman is dead.
The officer will not be prosecuted or Derek Chauvin-ed. He will continue his employ with ICE and go on. Meanwhile, the dead gal leaves at least one kid behind.
I think there is a lot of truth to the fact that the true villains are those insurrectionists at the top of the leftist hierarchy (Soros and Singwall?) that look at these liberal morons as fodder to generate hatred, division and left wing news hysterics. They are definitely the hidden villains.
"First, a law enforcement officer should probably never put themselves in front of a vehicle being driven by a hostile"
It's official doctrine.
<<I called law enforcement that I know. One in a city larger than Minneapolis. One in a county much larger than Minneapolis. One in a city smaller than Minneapolis. Two in smaller towns.
All said the same thing – you position yourself in front of the car so it will not move, drive away and put others at risk.
Most reasonable people will stop when there is a law enforcement officer in front of them.>>
Now, this is a rule engineered for a relatively high-trust society, and not (say) a carful of Jihadis detained in the sandbox. Perhaps re-evaluation will be deemed necessary for incidents involving shitlib AWFLs.
In the after action report, Floyd (name changed from Rover in 2020), was quoted as saying, "I just wanted to go to the park, man. Please don't leave me alone with Second Mommy."
What all these middle-aged middle-class martyrs fail to realize or accept is that, in the U.S.A., obstructing or interfering with a federal law enforcement officer is a federal crime punishable by imprisonment. Our "Brown shirt Nazis" need to start arresting these folks immediately upon their first action that impedes federal law enforcement in any way......social martyrdom is much harder to video in jail...
The relative restraint of ICE in the face of these crazy protesters is probably increasing the risk of the situation and making everything more dangerous. A systematic policy of arresting ICE Watch activists and charging them with obstruction would stabilise things, I expect.
Speaking only legally, this is an open and shut case. The shooting is absolutely, 100%, legally justified.
I watch a lot of police body cam footage these days and one thing that constantly surprises me is how many people (especially in the demographic you've identified) seem to have no understanding of what police can and can't do, and why they can or can't do it.
In particular for this case, people don't seem to understand that both legally and practically, cars are a deadly weapon. Intentionally driving towards someone is a lethal threat, same as pointing a gun at someone. If you point a gun at someone, but angle it so that, if you shot, you'd miss by 3 inches, the law doesn't say "oh, well then, they weren't actually in danger". The law says "you pulled a gun on someone".
It doesn't matter the angle of the wheels or anything. There is a cop in front of her vehicle. He says stop, get out of the car. She does not get out of the car; that right there is grounds for her to go to prison. Then, she attempts to drive with a person standing in front of her car. That's a threat of lethal force, he responded with lethal force until the threat was gone. That is how US law works. That is how US law has always worked. In a very real and literal sense, Good fucked around, and Good found out.
The thing that's surprising to me, so, of course the left is going to nitpick this and bullshit. That's expected. The thing that surprises me is that the driver seems to have had the absolute confidence that she could do this with no consequence. As this is legally equivalent to pulling a gun on a police officer, one has to wonder how a 'normal', 'peaceful' civilian member of society doesn't think twice about doing something like that. I am convinced that the people like Good are just legitimately not aware of where the line is, and what actions they take with cops that are forbidden.
I don't really care; my first commentary on this was "ok, now do the rest of the white women and maybe America can be great again". I am personally at the point where I actually do just want cops executing these women in cold blood in the middle of the street. Even if this shooting was brazenly illegal, I'd still celebrate it
But it's about as brazenly legal as a shooting can be, and I have been puzzling over how the activists on site in Minneapolis seem to be sincerely unaware of this
I also watch a lot of bodycam footage, and because I am a nerd I follow the legal details of key cases. I totally agree this is a justified shooting, legally speaking. I've been trying to make this point on X for days, with a lot of blowback.
To me, the fact that everyone is obsessing about that is baffling to me. Sure, we can all sit here and pause the video and go frame by frame. The cop who shot, cannot!
I am reasonably confident, given everything I know about the situation, that if the police officer had not shot, he would not have been injured. But that doesn't actually matter, because the police officer has like 2 seconds to make a decision, and if he choses wrong, he dies. Meanwhile, he is absolutely being reactive, and it's the woman who disobeys lawful orders, and tries to flee in a vehicle while a cop is in front of her.
The thing that bothers me even more though is that nobody is talking about the *other* officer. This guy https://files.catbox.moe/kcb5k0.png. His arm is inside the window up to his elbow when she starts driving. If she had floored it (which she didn't, but, nobody has any way of knowing she wouldn't), his arm gets ripped off. The guy in front of the car wasn't in actual danger, but may or may not have been in the threat of danger. I can't really comment from the video. But the guy with his arm in the cabin when she attempts to drive off is in absolute, unquestionable threat of danger. I have not heard *anybody* on *any* side discuss this.
That is very good point, Ross has a reasonable argument that he was firing to protect his fellow agent as well. The bar is pretty low for this. All the retard online commentary assumes that the standard is "if any other paths to survival exist, the shooting is not justified," which is not remotely the case and actually never could be for law enforcement anyway.
> "if any other paths to survival exist, the shooting is not justified,"
I want to make a snarky comment, but as I was writing it I was hit with this intense disorientation as I realized that the culture has shifted so much that nobody even actually cares about these talking points anymore.
But, snarky comment anyway. "If *any* other paths to survival exist, violence is not justified". You know, every rape is surviveable if you don't fight back. Kinda sounds like every rape victim who has ever existed, had an "other path to survival", and so, problem solved, they're fine, we can just ignore rape, right?
(I should hope it is abundantly clear that I am being facetious and think that rape is horrible and should be intensely punished. I'm simply pointing out, using this extreme example, that crime situations are more than just one-dimensional utilitarian exercises in death minimization. Every rapist should be shot, immediately, in the act, regardless of the specifics of it, as far as I'm concerned. If this makes more people die than otherwise would, good. They're rapists. They should die)
(I should also hope it's clear that I'm not accusing Eugy of this position. He's describing a hypothetical third party online's position, not his own)
I don't think there's any meaningful legal dispute here, but I think it is very very blatantly obvious that the guy beside the driver's door was in more threat than the guy who shot, and I don't understand why nobody's pointing this out.
I mean, hell, it *strengthens* Trump's moral position here, I don't understand why *he* isn't saying it, if nobody else
"His arm is inside the window up to his elbow when she starts driving. If she had floored it (which she didn't, but, nobody has any way of knowing she wouldn't), his arm gets ripped off."
Ironically, this is exactly the situation that had occurred to the shooter cop himself six months previously.
(Also, it's possible she DID floor it -- she skidded out on the ice significantly.)
I learned that about ten minutes ago on Youtube, and, well, it doesn't change anything for me but only because I already had that scenario in mind. This is an open and shut case, shooting was legal.
Despite being absolutely legally justified, the last time an absolutely justified death happened in a police interaction in Hennepin county, the cop is still rotting in prison 6 years later, so, in terms of the actual consequences of this, legal justification might not protect the cop.
On the other hand, last time, it was a local cop, and a Democrat president. This time, it's a fed, and a Republican cop. The administration will protect its own, so that's also in play
> In particular for this case, people don't seem to understand that both legally and practically, cars are a deadly weapon. Intentionally driving towards someone is a lethal threat, same as pointing a gun at someone. If you point a gun at someone, but angle it so that, if you shot, you'd miss by 3 inches, the law doesn't say "oh, well then, they weren't actually in danger". The law says "you pulled a gun on someone".
Actually, there's a recent example of this exact principle! Remember when Garrett Foster was shot by Daniel Perry in Austin, TX in 2020? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Garrett_Foster. If I'm recalling correctly, the talking point of the dispute, in public, was:
Perry did a self-defense: "Foster approached him with a shouldered rifle and that's a lethal threat. Perry shot to end the threat"
Perry did a murder: "Foster approached with the rifle clearly pointed downwards, not at Perry"
Reality: Foster probably *intended* to do that, but was an idiot who had bought his first gun like two weeks earlier, and did not understand the nuances of how you can legally hold a gun in front of someone else in public without threatening them
Cops Verdict: Perry turned himself in and they let him go 15 minutes later without charges. Open and shut self defense.
Point here is: Everyone was arguing over exactly where the rifle was pointed, and the cops basically said "if you have to argue over it all, then it was a threat, because, if it wasn't a threat, it would have been unambiguously not a threat"
Same thing with the car. If the cop was really in zero danger, there would be no detail to argue over. The motorist, being in control of a deadly weapon when behind the wheel, is not only obligated to act safely, but is obligated to act in a way that does not present the appearance of danger to others. This is a pragmatic recognition that mind reading is not possible, and you don't want to put other people in public in a situation where they have to figure out, on the spot, if they are being threatened or not. You want to make sure they know they're not.
The deceased did not do that. I agree with your take, these activists are playing chicken. She, at least on some level, philosophically consented to the fact that her actions might make it end this way. And then it did
"Cops Verdict: Perry turned himself in and they let him go 15 minutes later without charges. Open and shut self defense."
Um, no.
Soros Prosecutor Jose Garza in Houston brought him up on charges anyway, and got him convicted. The governor had to pardon him (which in Texas is complicated). He's still being prosecuted on a lesser charge, and Garza is challenging the pardon.
The DA is not the police. I lived in Austin when this happened, less than one mile away from where the shooting happened. I paid very close attention to the details
* Cops let him go without charges
* like a year later
* Soros DA brings charges anyway
* He goes to prison for super bullshit reasons
* A year later, Abbott gets him out, but only for the optics.
Yeah, he still went to prison. *The Austin PD* disagreed with that, pretty openly
"I am convinced that the people like Good are just legitimately not aware of where the line is"
People who have had the training often forget the sort of errors people who have not are likely to make... especially when they try to use "common sense" to inform their actions (the laws of lethal force are anything but common sense).
As a firearms instructor, a case I used to teach was about the "crazy co-worker" of a wife who broke into their family's home with a gun, to kill her. The husband went hand-to-hand and actually prevailed, wresting the gun from the loon. The invader fled across the street, then loudly announced he would be coming back when they were sleeping to kill them both. So the husband, with the loon's gun in his hand, plugged him. He was sent up for murder because the threat, though lethal, credible, and motivated, was not imminent. Were I relying on "common sense," I'd have plugged him too. Gun owners in that state were required to take a course of exactly such things -- but this man was not a "gun owner" (he used the criminal's own gun) and so had never had this training.
The schools will, of course, never teach this. They are all about teaching you how to exercise your first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights, but... "we don't talk about Bruen-o."
This is the main reason why, back when I lived in the US, I made the conscious choice not to carry like most of my friends did.
My preferred method of self defense is "don't go around ghetto people", and I figured the risk of me going to prison because the prosecutor is a dick was higher than the risk of me getting shot.
----
As an aside, let me tell you about the one time I violated the rules of gun safety. I am very lucky that I did not accidentally shoot my neighbour through the wall.
I had (Not anymore; I had to deport myself back to Canada) an AK-pattern rifle, old piece of shit I got for free from someone who replaced it with a sweet, tricked-out Galil. I never bother with the safety lever on my rifle, because, either it's unloaded in its bag in my closet, or it's pointing downrange at the gun range, so, whatever.
I get home from the range, take out my rifle to start cleaning it. There's no mag in there, it's fine. I fumbled a bunch with the little spring-loaded button you gotta press in to get the receiver casing off, and, I definitely slammed some stuff around in there a bunch.
When I finally got it off, a live round fell out, presumably from the chamber. I have no idea how it didn't go off.
It only took that one near-miss crisis to get me to triple-check every time since
Young girls don't engage in rough and tumble play to the degree that young boys do. It's just nature. Girls are not familiar with both giving and taking a punch, shove or kick... sometimes by your friends. Rough housing 101. It helps boys grow into men and realize that there are consequences to their actions. Ask any man who has engaged in military fighting about their mindset... it's usually full of caution & calculation.
Women don't have that perspective. They are full of righteous indignation and don't seem afraid to physically insert themselves into volatile situations. And with age, women just get worse about it. More brazen. I am of the opinion that this trend is more nurture these days being egged on by fellow leftists. This is fine with child rearing and maybe some other situations but not with public safety and the literal/physical public square.
It's shocking to watch these episodes of woman after woman cosplaying her way into danger and sometimes death.
Keep it up. We'll see where it ends. But you were warned.
Men grow out of this sort of juvenile idiocy with the assistance of an occasional ass-kicking by their acquaintances. Women get a free pass right up until the first and final bullet.
It seems as if in this game if you try to kill or at least drive over an ICE agent, their guns are lethal, not like in Call of Duty or the like where you get to live again. These really are very silly woman. The way they are eulogised is sickening and so predictable.
On top of moving the car she was also screaming something at the ICE agents. High pitched with a shriek.
Maybe the antiwar mid 60's started this feeling of fighting back at cops. In 59 or 60 my cousin and I got arrested in a burger place for loitering but in fact we had eaten and were just leaving. We explained this but we still got put in a paddy wagon and hauled to the precinct and joined two other guys in a two-person cell. Next morning the charges were dismissed. We never argued with the cops or even raised our voices.
I'm old and frail but still walk in my neighborhood. I also carry and have for many years. If anyone makes me feel my life is threatened, I am going to protect myself with deadly force. I live in a Stand Your Ground state.
Just imagine the deafening silence if this looney had been killed by an illegal.
The woman killed by an ICE agent is dead because liberals gaslit her into thinking she could do whatever she wanted and call it social justice.
End of story.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
> The woman killed by an ICE agent is dead because liberals gaslit her into thinking she could do whatever she wanted and call it social justice.
The detachment from reality these folks display somehow still amazes me.
I too continue to be amazed at progressives inability to assess threat in any meaningful way. I am convinced the lower the T levels, the more you overestimate your ability to walk away unscathed. I cannot imagine some jacked ex-marine doing what she did to an armed man.
Particularly when they engage in this sort of behavior towards people they themselves claim are hyperviolent fascists. I can't understand the disconnect.
"I'm gonna go kick a grizzly bear cub right in front of its mother."
*headshake*
It can only be fantasy. They immerse in their fictions, and struggle to escape. They also rely heavily on societal structures they themselves work to dismantle. High trust is rare, and many women in Western nations take it for granted. No woman in Saudi Arabia would speak to a law enforcement officer as she did. They have an expectation of civility they are working hard to destroy.
We are surely now learning universal suffrage is not survivable.
I don't think it's the lower "T" levels. It's culture. Hunter Gatherer women don't taunt men in that way. But the majority of liberal American women have grown up thinking somehow they can physically provoke, or even hit men, and that the police will back them up. But it's actually not true. Many American women are arrested for physical domestic assault on their partners, and I'm one of those male partners whose female partner was once jailed for physical assault on me.
These people wear their self-righteousness like armor, thinking it will protect them from all negative outcomes. Thinking that someone would be an awful, hideous Nazi for shooting you does not prevent them from actually shooting you.
They are repugnant. More repugnant still are the mendacious media mockingbirds.
Part of it could be the way women (especially liberal white women) have been taught that they are invulnerable, and nobody will possibly dare to touch them, no matter what they do. Little boys are taught "You don't hit girls" and that's totally reasonable, considering the strength differences; but now it's gone so much farther. Now you can't even say a bad word to a female or you'll be cancelled at best.
At least this has been the case recently, in their own world where those rules apply-- but now they're beginning to see that those rules aren't in force so much any more.
They have been teaching men, especially white men, and cops, and have been convinced by their handlers, that in our Western culture, women won't be mishandled, harmed, hurt, killed, held responsible (Me Too), for their behaviors. This brainwashing has been used by the groups training them, and throwing them onto the "protest lines", to make them believe that their special status as women protects them from harm, making them the Frontline of the Resistance Movement, whether it's for George Floyd, Palestine, Gaza, Me Too, the Trans Movement, Venezuela, Ukraine, blah, blah. The handlers know that law enforcement, for many reasons, is going to be more reluctant to use force against women because of how it looks in the media, even though we've had proof since Vietnam that women and children can be dangerous weapons in guerrilla warfare.
Exactly. It's a brilliant propaganda ploy, because the human race is programmed by evolution to protect the women. It's been hilarious to see these antifa young ladies out there hitting and punching, then so shocked when they get hit in return and BOOM, taken down instantly. Same for these middle-aged Karens, as they get taken down too. If women can hit and punch, they can get punched right back. Soon that message is going to percolate thru the lefties, and we'll see what they do.
Agreed. Once they discover that there's no one to protect them, the suburban women's feminine instincts will kick in and they'll stop taking risks for the cause. The male protesters will be expected to step to the forefront.
From Law professor David McGrogan’s brilliant Substack:
“We are governed by a class of people who prefer to live in a narrative world than the real one; who prefer to inhabit the map rather than the territory; who prefer to model and forecast rather than think; and who prefer Baudrillardian simulacra to the truth.”
You need to take a look at what this fellow has to say.
I'm not saying i agree with your recommendation, but this is the link you should have provided. https://newsfromuncibal.substack.com/
The woman stupidly died on behalf of hundreds of ungrateful illegals. I have yet to see any Somali spokesmen expressing any appreciation.
ICE was probably going after Latino gangsters. The Somalis are quite pleased more $$ for them and a break from the bad PR.
https://x.com/no_one_quits/status/2009841496648790068
<quote>Out of all the things to come out of the ICE shooting in Minnesota, one thing is more important than all others:
We found out that the non Whites didn’t show up for the protests to support their “White allies”
</quote>
Brown, black, Somali, it doesn't matter and they don't care.
Include the whites in that:
"Leftist [white] woman says she “feels wrong” for paying her respects to Renee Good because she’s a “white woman who’s privileged.”
“White tears are not helpful.”
"Comment: You can literally die in service to the Eternal Progressive Omnicause and Leftists will still repudiate you because you’re White."
https://x.com/ChristianHeiens/status/2009542321046441997
One more data point to prove that when your entire worldview is based on narratives that deliberately reject reality, it’s simply impossible to make all the parts mesh together enough to accomplish anything important, including your own goals.
Yes. That one too
She wasn't acting on behalf of anyone but herself. She and her fuck buddy were just getting off on the thrills of bullying the cops and feeling tough and righteous, in the mistaken assumption that they would pay no price for their fun. Fuck Buddy was doing her butch-dyke best impression of Clint Eastwood and having a grand old time.
Then reality caught up with them, and it's just not FAIR!
The incident has a strange, twisted aspect. Ms Good died doing what she greatly enjoyed doing and died without the long suffering & heavy expense associated with normal deaths.
True. And now we'll have to put up with her fuck buddy's plaintive yowling and mewling in exaggerated outrage. For crybullies, it's the gift that keeps on giving.
Nevertheless, I don't envy her.
The tactic was originated in the drug trade, getting kids to carry because they were prosecuted in juvenile court.
Women are less likely to be prosecuted than men, and if convicted do less time. Also makes for more sympathy (just a soccer mom, etc.) Plus the AWFLs are more gullible and easier to recruit.
The term "Social Justice Warrior" is more than hyperbole.
50+ years of Marxists long-marching through our government schools has successfully replaced classical instruction in critical thinking with the collective fantasy that all boys and girls are little Skywalkers and Amidalas, whose chief value is battling the racism, sexism, globular warmening, inequity, and capitalism of an Evil Empire (all the while being funded by a dead ringer for Palpatine, and electing people like Count Dooku mayors).
The de-emphasizing of critical thinking helps make it improbable for any "are we the baddies?" epiphany to occur among the deluded.
And, to paraphrase Orwell brutally, it's always the chicks who take to this delusion with "hold our beer."
(Side question: Are you still an AWFL if Momma has to pay all your bills?)
It all makes sense. Well said
Same with shoplifting. In blue state shopping malls, gangs of teenagers and younger kids simply walk into stores and steal openly. Employees are forbidden to stop them and cautioned against even questioning them, lest they receive a knife in the solar plexus. The security guards are also under the same constraints. Only police are able to stop them, and they're reluctant to make arrests because the courts will simply let the offenders go back into the custody of their parents, who are often profiting from the shoplifters by fencing the stolen goods for them. It's outrageous.
As they say on the internet, "Fool Around, Find Out." (FAFO, sanitised for public consumption.)
Do any of our readers know how to submit this for consideration for a Darwin Award?
I saw a meme on instagram that said “Live and Lear.”
That’s from the sign on the fraudulent learing or learning center.
I know—I loved it.
🤣🤣🤣
She has 3 kids so won’t qualify for a Darwin Award.
Well, maybe they have had puberty blockers to rid themselves of the patriarchal conceit of their birth assigned gender? In which case that particular gene pool has reached an impassable dam.
I think the most important point the professor makes is that the victim - the fat girl - was having fun. These protesters are thoroughly enjoying themselves. The police are out doing a hard job and we allow a bunch of rejects to just fuck everything up.
More of them are going to get killed . Up the ante, make it less fun.
Perhaps this little game could be brought to an end if the ICE put bumper bars on their SUVs. Retarded AWFL blocking your passage? Buldoze her to one side and continue on your way. Having her nice shiny middle-class suburban ride (with heated seats and sunroof) all crumpled up on one side would put an end to the fun really fast. Having to pay the insurance deductible would add insult to injury.
BM is 100% correct. That would definitely change their behavior.
I thought to myself that they would have to kill many more of the protesters. To make a point, I think it would be in the hundreds. But then it occurred to me that would make people upset. It would be unpopular. It could actually be a trigger to more action. But bashing the shit out their vehicle would be absolutely perfect. In a way it’s kind of funny. Mind you not to the person whose vehicle gets banged up, I hope the humour would be lost on them.
One or two dead protesters, and a few more injured when things get physical, will be enough to deter most of the fair-weather SJ warriors. This is especially true for the women, who are risk-averse by nature. I noticed how much the Kyle Rittenhouse incident seemed to calm things down during the Summer of Floyd.
This is not a nice thing to say, It is inhumane, but, what the hell, I agree wholeheartedly. This makes us atrocious as Hill!
Insurance doesn't cover your loss during riots, protests, or insurrections.
Why, that's just AWFL!
No loss for protesters, but I've always felt bad for the innocent businesses, homeowners, and other property owners who are in the way. People always figure the insurance companies pay for the loss when fires, bricks, looting, and overall destruction take place, but if you look at your auto or home insurance policy, you'll notice clauses that state the coverage doesn't pay for loss during a riot, war, protest, insurrection, etc. My parents both worked for a large insurance company, so I learned to read the entire policy early on in life.
Excellent point. It points up the depraved indifference of the leftwing mayor's such as Frey, who did little or nothing to stop the destruction of small businesses in the St George (Floyd) riots.
A fellow poster named Bizarro Man has the solution.
Simple: have bash bars on the front of the ICE police vehicles and push the protesters vehicles out of the way. Not a giant hit, just a firm shove so as no one gets hurt. But the vehicle gets scraped and dented.
Our author, the goodly professor, said something that had not occurred to me : the girl in question, she who got shot, was having fun.
It never occurred to me; These people are having jolly good fun.
The police need a tactic to up the ante. Tada: Nobody wants $5000 damage them to their vehicle. The ram bars and the willingness to use them would instantly trump (haha) their tactic of blocking the road with their cars.
It’s a winner, and you could use some highway traffic act law as justification. That would infuriate the left.
Yeah, crunch their cars up .
Precisely.
What I don’t get is, do they even know whom they are protecting in every case, or do they just block all ICE activity that they can? I could see maybe trying to protect a nice family of visa over-stayers, but what if ICE is trying to arrest armed gang members? These little games could get a lot more people killed.
They don't care. They must protect brown people (murderers or not) for absolution of all past mortal sins.
And protect the primary Democrat party voting bloc: empty ballots of people who don't show up.
It is so strange to see this in a different context. For two days it’s been legal briefs, SCOTUS precedents comparison of photos, sections of law, and sadness about the young orphan, despite Mom’s choices. Somehow it’s Nazism flavor in Deutschland.
Well, I hate to see you go friend. But, I get it.
Let's stay in touch:
Socalrygar@gmail.com
Parallels exist with Oxford, Mississippi, in 1962. Kennedy sent federal marshals to enforce the admission of James Meredith to Ole Miss. Riots followed, and the marshals received no protection from Governor Ross Barnett. The governor activated the National Guard. Kennedy quickly federalized the Mississippi National Guard. He made it clear to the governor that the guard was under federal control ( I hope Tampon Tim understands this)and flew in the 101st Airborne Division. Kennedy had 30,000 troops on the ground in a city with fewer people. The message was clear. Local authorities have an obligation to aid federal law enforcement. FEDERAL LAW IS SUPREME. The alternative? FAFO
Walz is behaving no differently than those southern governors complaining about "outside agitators" and asserting, "We know how to take care of our own."
Precisely.
Ha ha, we'll see.
And let's not forget President Eisenhower sending in the same unit to Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the black children integrating the schools. A proud moment in our history.
Useful history, thank you.
I agree with your read of the scenario of idiots spending their days preventing the Police from law enforcement. Because I follow a government attorney who pointed out the angles of the tires at 3 different points as a fact of the case, I follow his reasoning. He also posted several precedents from SCOTUS decisions, and posted the guidelines of ICE & DHS and local police insofar as MVC.
Speaking of the High Court, the case of federalizing the National Guard for Federal Police’s safety has been in our court system for months with the Supreme Court giving a quick ruling to the Commander in Chief that he needs to call in the regular military and call on the Insurrection Act.((which it is-Federal law has been annuled. The NG can only be called if the military is unable to keep the local laws. They admitted that without reading each side’s briefs, they were not confident in the holding. It’s a very unpopular step for the President to take. I see he is using Border Patrol.
I think that arrest warrants should be issued to anyone interfering with police, but any governor allowing a sanctuary city or state lacks common sense to consider control of his populace. Sorry for the long response.
The civil war settled that lol
Insurrection Act remains on the books for annulment of Federal law by states. Supremacy Clause.
Yes, the much more important connection is to the NGO network. Real investigation needs to occur here, to discover, which orgs were paying them - there's no way they were doing this for free. There is some speculation that in this particular case, the money derives not just from an NGO, but prior to that, from the state of Minnesota. If proven true, it would be momentus to display to the world that governor Tim Walz is responsible for this incident.
Yes. Exactly.
Something akin to the astroturfed 1/6 "investigation", but legit.
Come in with vengeance and furious anger.
Let's get to the bottom of it.
It should be done by law enforcement.
Agree
There is apparently a "real" investigation underway, but since it is being conducted by the FBI, it will trusted by very few. I don't mean to paint the FBI with a broad brush; there are certainly plenty of good people there, but at the management level it is corrupt.
It's being done.
"Cooperation Cannon River receives money from the Tide[s] Foundation, for example, which is funded by the Open Society Foundation. In short: 🚨 George Soros."
https://x.com/MWilliamsonMN/status/2009387467036585986
Also (older work):
"Tides Foundation is the Soros 'charity' that funded much of the Antifa BLM protests in 2020. (Besides many other crappy things.) USAID was one of Tides' primary funders."
https://xcancel.com/Jringo1508/status/1887344874279653808
Yet again, we have a woman desperate to escape the normal demands of motherhood and she'd finally found a partner who'd direct her in how to do that most spectacularly.
Note the year when she was in NYC documenting the homeless according to this photographer. Her third child--now a double orphan because of cosmic misfortune of parentage--must have been a baby when she decided to go weep over and feed strangers.
https://people.com/renee-good-traveled-to-nyc-feed-photograph-homeless-people-11882431
I read also, an unsubstantiated report that Good lost custody of her two older children to their father because her lesbian squeeze had been abusing them. Her third child had no living father to protect him and she and Becca took him off to Canada after Trump was elected before settling in the US again but in a state none of the three of them had ties to.
If I told you what I *really* feel about these women we'd all get banned here.
Her death was NOT a tragedy, except for the damage she caused to the ICE agent who was forced to defend himself against her malicious intent, and the child she had undoubtedly influenced with her poisonous ideology. Her death was a blessing, otherwise.
Her death was just stupid and pointless.
It was tragedy in purest form - a self-created downfall entirely due to her own flaws.
A Shakespearean level of hubris, with a third act result.
She's been doing activism for quite a while. I thought this post by Andy Ngo was interesting, although I wouldn't pin a whole lot on the "terrorism" label, which might've been ironic or joking or something.
https://substack.com/@mrandyngo/note/c-197706083
The notable aspect is that a fully-grown mother of three children was still asking mommy to fund her.
Those Venmo payments were from her mother?
Yes.
🙄
She was a complete and utter loser in every possible way one can be.
And get set for the custody fights to come. The GoFundMe on behalf of her lesbian squeeze and her little boy is over a million bucks now.
Ms Good would not need a salary from an NGO if her mother sufficiently subsidized her.
Ms. Good might be alive if she'd had an effective father.
I looked for the article in the link but did not find it. But I did find Andy Ngo's substack site, Ngo Comment.
https://www.ngocomment.com/
Unfortunately her incredibly stupid death has made her a martyr to the lefties, so really she was quite the Useful Idiot, in the classic sense. I get so tired of these entitled women who don't seem to have any idea that blockading a police action during a volatile time could possibly be anything but a fabulous TikTok video.
Well, I guess it did turn out to be a fabulous TikTok video, but I doubt Good planned on it going the way it did. So smug and clueless! No idea that anyone would ever possibly harm them, because women are not allowed to be harmed, ever, no matter what they do.
Well, they're able to manufacture martyrs like they got a factory rolling 24/7 but it's the remarkable idiocy of some voices on the right determined to give comfort to the enemy that's the bigger problem.
Good was just a seriously fucked-up loser which is the prime sort to be sucked into any sort of cult.
Yes
Thank you, SCA, for this informative post.
There's still no substantiation of the child abuse rumors though.
'The goal here is pretty clearly to enlist dumb women to obstruct the police in dangerous ways, with the hope of provoking a violent response that party organisations can exploit for further activism and propaganda.'
You've put your finger on it right there.
Yes. Exactly.
Unchecked aggressions inevitably leads to greater numbers of aggressions and to aggressions that are more severe.
Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature could have predicted that these unchecked anti-ICE aggressions would lead to escalated action on both sides.
It was simply a matter of time.
You can't follow a bear (or a dog or a cat or a horse or a raccoon) around all day, poking it with a sharp stick, and not expecting it to turn on you at some point.
Yeah, and that ICE agent had been run over a couple months ago by one of these rogue useful idiots.
He spent a few days in the hospital and ended up with a severe gash requiring 33 stitches.
I might be a little trigger happy too.
What's next? Is the left going to claim he should've just shot at the cars wheels?
People are saying that, yes.
Actually, in this case, I don't see how shooting the driver could've done any good either, but I'm not blaming the officer by any means.
Shooting the driver did plenty of good, she won’t be menacing any more law enforcement officers
I should have specified "immediate good". It didn't stop him from getting hit by the car.
Like I said, tragic, but predictable.
Wish he could have shot her in the arm or something, rather than a kill shot. So she wouldn't have become a martyr. But if it hadn't been her, it would have been another one like her, so the situation really wasn't avoidable.
Democratic Party propaganda outlets would have made her a martyr anyway.
It was an intended outcome by the nefarious parties funding these wastes of breath.
Yes. It's a formula. There's a reason they put women out front.
These protesters and obstructionists don’t just show up because they saw the news coverage and were morally compelled to act, they are always funded, planned, organized by an activist organizations. An organization tied to one or more leftist nonprofits that receives its funding from Soros, China etc.
I watched a video yesterday where Laura Ingraham asked a protester, “Don’t you have a job?” To which the protester replied, “I’m getting paid right now.” No shit!
Although the truth has come out about this incident the commie Dems always count on the first version being the one people remember. Thus their rush to the microphones.
They are not wrong on this as most commie Dem supporters have the attention span of a gnat
Yet all of these liberals think they are non-violent and hate testosterone and the patriarchy, and aggression. In reality, they are seething, angry, and full of hate that they enjoy dumping on others.
"Anyone with a basic understanding of human nature could have predicted that these unchecked anti-ICE aggressions would lead to escalated action on both sides."
Many people insist that is the entire point. Some SJW takes one for the team, becomes a martyr, and is used to beat the other side over the head. Saw it with George Floyd, saw it (uncharacteristically) with Charlie Kirk. The weakness of this battle plan is social fatigue. A majority of America is sick of these fake martyrs and their astroturf cheer squads. I predict the left is going to feel the same wave of "she shouldna been there" from Americans that they themselves cynically launched at Ashli Babbitt.
Absolutely. If it wasn't Renee Good who was killed, it would have been another one just like her. Obviously this was going to happen, and here we are.
At the street level, one side considers this "resistance" or even "antics," but the reality is that they are committing crimes by attempting to impede federal officers in the performance of their duties. The most serious part of the situation is thus overlooked and normalized as some kind of civic duty. None--not one--of these Karens has ever so much as taken a punch before, and they have no clue how much danger they are putting themselves in. At least a bully can comprehend that sometimes his victims fight back. This is far more dangerous than people realize.
That the men around her car are armed seems not to have registered with Renee Good. That a possible outcome of a confrontation with armed individuals is death or disability appears to be something she could not even imagine.
These last 6 months I’ve been explaining to my daughter (who will soon leave for college), that history has taught us that revolutions from young ladies don’t end well. I talked about the young women involved in Mao’s Red Army (I describe them as being basically dangerous Karen’s), then I moved to the Russia and Stalin and the Bolshevik’s. In both cases the young women involved were killed or imprisoned later by the very people they supported so vehemently earlier. Then my Persian friend reminded me that Iran did exactly the same thing. And I reminded her that the women did all of this- to support a man (even though they were avowed feminists). Here we have exactly the same system, and they are supporting an other man- Soros/Reid Hoffman.
If people are going to engage in civil disobedience, they should be ready to pay the consequences. Edward Snowden did. And Martin Luther King.
[edited]
The thing you learn from watching their content but also from talking to some people, is that a lot of them are kind of childish and have no real conception of what they're doing. some of them appear to think they're in some kind of hero role in a film, others that this just kind of a fun game, a recreation to pass the time. Modern society is very comfortable and doesn't provide many opportunities for people to appreciate objective risks.
It’s like it’s a computer game where you get shot but play on regardless. This time it was deadly.
The most dangerous demographic in Western Civilization is angry white liberal females.
But, but Renée was “a suburban mom and a poet.”
Being a poet didn't help Oscar Wilde 😬
Yeah, but more to that story...
If they think they are casting her as more sympathetic to me by telling me she was a poet, boy, did they dial the wrong number.
Indeed. I cringe when they start.
Yes, and this is why we can’t have nice things, like a society free of idiocy and lawlessness.
That's one result of safetyism culture, for sure.
I've noticed that they tend to mistake government mollycoddling and exploitative permissiveness as weakness. The J6 Capitol meanderers found out that the government is essentially omnipotent and ruthlessly cruel when people operate outside its Overton playground.
One of the most profound problems in modern society is simple boredom.
Millions with little creative or useful to do crave excitement in their lives—the more heroic they imagine it is, the more emotionally fulfilled they feel.
So they imagine themselves heroes in a Star Wars drama taking on the Imperial storm troopers (ICE) and fighting the evil empire!
Even if they die, they imagine that theirs is a glorious death. Maybe Hollywood will make a movie about their sacrifice!
What’s the old proverb about idle hands being the playthings of the devil?
Modernity is the victim of its own comfortable success. Boredom is its byproduct.
I’ve had this thought too that much evil begins in boredom. A good example is the story of the Cambridge Five. Guy Burgess especially seems to have betrayed his country for the excitement of it all.
Exactly so -- it isn't real to them. It's a play, a video, a movie, in which they are the victorious hero. I don't think these people, especially these middle-aged white liberal women, have any real concept that they can do anything wrong, or that there will be consequences.
This is precisely the fantasy that our education system has taught them.
But I make that point at more length elsewhere here.
Really well stated.
Explains the abundance of cosseted old boomers at some of these protests. Perhaps the most fortunate generation in history so far. They are always clueless or robotic when questioned.
Some of the stupidity you and others remark on is caused by computer viruses. I agree with you that not all of it is symptomatic of mental illness, but perhaps we can all see that the case of Renee Good evinces cogent indication of mental virus infection and lack of resistance to it.
I read an interesting analysis in the Free Press yesterday, regarding this event. I have to admit, it made plenty of sense to me. First, a law enforcement officer should probably never put themselves in front of a vehicle being driven by a hostile. The unknown state of mind of the driver is unpredictable and possibly reckless. As such the officers body will be in great danger should the driver accelerate. Second, shooting into a moving vehicle is a bad idea. This is a prime example...In this case, the SUV hit another parked car, the best result you could hope for. It could have been much worse.
With this said, the person at fault in this case is the lady in the SUV and her partner. Intentionally harassing law enforcement and blocking their efforts should not be considered a game. This created a dangerous situation and now this woman is dead.
The officer will not be prosecuted or Derek Chauvin-ed. He will continue his employ with ICE and go on. Meanwhile, the dead gal leaves at least one kid behind.
I think there is a lot of truth to the fact that the true villains are those insurrectionists at the top of the leftist hierarchy (Soros and Singwall?) that look at these liberal morons as fodder to generate hatred, division and left wing news hysterics. They are definitely the hidden villains.
Lessons for all here.
"First, a law enforcement officer should probably never put themselves in front of a vehicle being driven by a hostile"
It's official doctrine.
<<I called law enforcement that I know. One in a city larger than Minneapolis. One in a county much larger than Minneapolis. One in a city smaller than Minneapolis. Two in smaller towns.
All said the same thing – you position yourself in front of the car so it will not move, drive away and put others at risk.
Most reasonable people will stop when there is a law enforcement officer in front of them.>>
https://legalinsurrection.com/2026/01/video-released-of-ice-agents-perspective-of-minneapolis-shooting/#comment-1723475
Now, this is a rule engineered for a relatively high-trust society, and not (say) a carful of Jihadis detained in the sandbox. Perhaps re-evaluation will be deemed necessary for incidents involving shitlib AWFLs.
There is an extended technical discussion of the issues you mention on Racket News.
https://www.racket.news/p/whos-to-blame-in-minnesota-five-cases
Seen in the police bodycam video of the Good episode, some poor innocent dog is captive in the Good vehicle. I hope he came through the crash OK.
In the after action report, Floyd (name changed from Rover in 2020), was quoted as saying, "I just wanted to go to the park, man. Please don't leave me alone with Second Mommy."
What all these middle-aged middle-class martyrs fail to realize or accept is that, in the U.S.A., obstructing or interfering with a federal law enforcement officer is a federal crime punishable by imprisonment. Our "Brown shirt Nazis" need to start arresting these folks immediately upon their first action that impedes federal law enforcement in any way......social martyrdom is much harder to video in jail...
The relative restraint of ICE in the face of these crazy protesters is probably increasing the risk of the situation and making everything more dangerous. A systematic policy of arresting ICE Watch activists and charging them with obstruction would stabilise things, I expect.
I'd agree. I'd have trouble restraining myself were I this videographer listening to my dog get agitated.
https://x.com/gragedustin/status/2010037103665787019
Video of 3 minutes prior to incident from resident.
Speaking only legally, this is an open and shut case. The shooting is absolutely, 100%, legally justified.
I watch a lot of police body cam footage these days and one thing that constantly surprises me is how many people (especially in the demographic you've identified) seem to have no understanding of what police can and can't do, and why they can or can't do it.
In particular for this case, people don't seem to understand that both legally and practically, cars are a deadly weapon. Intentionally driving towards someone is a lethal threat, same as pointing a gun at someone. If you point a gun at someone, but angle it so that, if you shot, you'd miss by 3 inches, the law doesn't say "oh, well then, they weren't actually in danger". The law says "you pulled a gun on someone".
It doesn't matter the angle of the wheels or anything. There is a cop in front of her vehicle. He says stop, get out of the car. She does not get out of the car; that right there is grounds for her to go to prison. Then, she attempts to drive with a person standing in front of her car. That's a threat of lethal force, he responded with lethal force until the threat was gone. That is how US law works. That is how US law has always worked. In a very real and literal sense, Good fucked around, and Good found out.
The thing that's surprising to me, so, of course the left is going to nitpick this and bullshit. That's expected. The thing that surprises me is that the driver seems to have had the absolute confidence that she could do this with no consequence. As this is legally equivalent to pulling a gun on a police officer, one has to wonder how a 'normal', 'peaceful' civilian member of society doesn't think twice about doing something like that. I am convinced that the people like Good are just legitimately not aware of where the line is, and what actions they take with cops that are forbidden.
I don't really care; my first commentary on this was "ok, now do the rest of the white women and maybe America can be great again". I am personally at the point where I actually do just want cops executing these women in cold blood in the middle of the street. Even if this shooting was brazenly illegal, I'd still celebrate it
But it's about as brazenly legal as a shooting can be, and I have been puzzling over how the activists on site in Minneapolis seem to be sincerely unaware of this
I also watch a lot of bodycam footage, and because I am a nerd I follow the legal details of key cases. I totally agree this is a justified shooting, legally speaking. I've been trying to make this point on X for days, with a lot of blowback.
To me, the fact that everyone is obsessing about that is baffling to me. Sure, we can all sit here and pause the video and go frame by frame. The cop who shot, cannot!
I am reasonably confident, given everything I know about the situation, that if the police officer had not shot, he would not have been injured. But that doesn't actually matter, because the police officer has like 2 seconds to make a decision, and if he choses wrong, he dies. Meanwhile, he is absolutely being reactive, and it's the woman who disobeys lawful orders, and tries to flee in a vehicle while a cop is in front of her.
The thing that bothers me even more though is that nobody is talking about the *other* officer. This guy https://files.catbox.moe/kcb5k0.png. His arm is inside the window up to his elbow when she starts driving. If she had floored it (which she didn't, but, nobody has any way of knowing she wouldn't), his arm gets ripped off. The guy in front of the car wasn't in actual danger, but may or may not have been in the threat of danger. I can't really comment from the video. But the guy with his arm in the cabin when she attempts to drive off is in absolute, unquestionable threat of danger. I have not heard *anybody* on *any* side discuss this.
That is very good point, Ross has a reasonable argument that he was firing to protect his fellow agent as well. The bar is pretty low for this. All the retard online commentary assumes that the standard is "if any other paths to survival exist, the shooting is not justified," which is not remotely the case and actually never could be for law enforcement anyway.
> "if any other paths to survival exist, the shooting is not justified,"
I want to make a snarky comment, but as I was writing it I was hit with this intense disorientation as I realized that the culture has shifted so much that nobody even actually cares about these talking points anymore.
But, snarky comment anyway. "If *any* other paths to survival exist, violence is not justified". You know, every rape is surviveable if you don't fight back. Kinda sounds like every rape victim who has ever existed, had an "other path to survival", and so, problem solved, they're fine, we can just ignore rape, right?
(I should hope it is abundantly clear that I am being facetious and think that rape is horrible and should be intensely punished. I'm simply pointing out, using this extreme example, that crime situations are more than just one-dimensional utilitarian exercises in death minimization. Every rapist should be shot, immediately, in the act, regardless of the specifics of it, as far as I'm concerned. If this makes more people die than otherwise would, good. They're rapists. They should die)
(I should also hope it's clear that I'm not accusing Eugy of this position. He's describing a hypothetical third party online's position, not his own)
I don't think there's any meaningful legal dispute here, but I think it is very very blatantly obvious that the guy beside the driver's door was in more threat than the guy who shot, and I don't understand why nobody's pointing this out.
I mean, hell, it *strengthens* Trump's moral position here, I don't understand why *he* isn't saying it, if nobody else
"His arm is inside the window up to his elbow when she starts driving. If she had floored it (which she didn't, but, nobody has any way of knowing she wouldn't), his arm gets ripped off."
Ironically, this is exactly the situation that had occurred to the shooter cop himself six months previously.
(Also, it's possible she DID floor it -- she skidded out on the ice significantly.)
I learned that about ten minutes ago on Youtube, and, well, it doesn't change anything for me but only because I already had that scenario in mind. This is an open and shut case, shooting was legal.
Devil's advocate for a second:
Despite being absolutely legally justified, the last time an absolutely justified death happened in a police interaction in Hennepin county, the cop is still rotting in prison 6 years later, so, in terms of the actual consequences of this, legal justification might not protect the cop.
On the other hand, last time, it was a local cop, and a Democrat president. This time, it's a fed, and a Republican cop. The administration will protect its own, so that's also in play
> In particular for this case, people don't seem to understand that both legally and practically, cars are a deadly weapon. Intentionally driving towards someone is a lethal threat, same as pointing a gun at someone. If you point a gun at someone, but angle it so that, if you shot, you'd miss by 3 inches, the law doesn't say "oh, well then, they weren't actually in danger". The law says "you pulled a gun on someone".
Actually, there's a recent example of this exact principle! Remember when Garrett Foster was shot by Daniel Perry in Austin, TX in 2020? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Garrett_Foster. If I'm recalling correctly, the talking point of the dispute, in public, was:
Perry did a self-defense: "Foster approached him with a shouldered rifle and that's a lethal threat. Perry shot to end the threat"
Perry did a murder: "Foster approached with the rifle clearly pointed downwards, not at Perry"
Reality: Foster probably *intended* to do that, but was an idiot who had bought his first gun like two weeks earlier, and did not understand the nuances of how you can legally hold a gun in front of someone else in public without threatening them
Cops Verdict: Perry turned himself in and they let him go 15 minutes later without charges. Open and shut self defense.
Point here is: Everyone was arguing over exactly where the rifle was pointed, and the cops basically said "if you have to argue over it all, then it was a threat, because, if it wasn't a threat, it would have been unambiguously not a threat"
Same thing with the car. If the cop was really in zero danger, there would be no detail to argue over. The motorist, being in control of a deadly weapon when behind the wheel, is not only obligated to act safely, but is obligated to act in a way that does not present the appearance of danger to others. This is a pragmatic recognition that mind reading is not possible, and you don't want to put other people in public in a situation where they have to figure out, on the spot, if they are being threatened or not. You want to make sure they know they're not.
The deceased did not do that. I agree with your take, these activists are playing chicken. She, at least on some level, philosophically consented to the fact that her actions might make it end this way. And then it did
"Cops Verdict: Perry turned himself in and they let him go 15 minutes later without charges. Open and shut self defense."
Um, no.
Soros Prosecutor Jose Garza in Houston brought him up on charges anyway, and got him convicted. The governor had to pardon him (which in Texas is complicated). He's still being prosecuted on a lesser charge, and Garza is challenging the pardon.
The DA is not the police. I lived in Austin when this happened, less than one mile away from where the shooting happened. I paid very close attention to the details
* Cops let him go without charges
* like a year later
* Soros DA brings charges anyway
* He goes to prison for super bullshit reasons
* A year later, Abbott gets him out, but only for the optics.
Yeah, he still went to prison. *The Austin PD* disagreed with that, pretty openly
"I am convinced that the people like Good are just legitimately not aware of where the line is"
People who have had the training often forget the sort of errors people who have not are likely to make... especially when they try to use "common sense" to inform their actions (the laws of lethal force are anything but common sense).
As a firearms instructor, a case I used to teach was about the "crazy co-worker" of a wife who broke into their family's home with a gun, to kill her. The husband went hand-to-hand and actually prevailed, wresting the gun from the loon. The invader fled across the street, then loudly announced he would be coming back when they were sleeping to kill them both. So the husband, with the loon's gun in his hand, plugged him. He was sent up for murder because the threat, though lethal, credible, and motivated, was not imminent. Were I relying on "common sense," I'd have plugged him too. Gun owners in that state were required to take a course of exactly such things -- but this man was not a "gun owner" (he used the criminal's own gun) and so had never had this training.
The schools will, of course, never teach this. They are all about teaching you how to exercise your first, fourth, and fifth amendment rights, but... "we don't talk about Bruen-o."
This is the main reason why, back when I lived in the US, I made the conscious choice not to carry like most of my friends did.
My preferred method of self defense is "don't go around ghetto people", and I figured the risk of me going to prison because the prosecutor is a dick was higher than the risk of me getting shot.
----
As an aside, let me tell you about the one time I violated the rules of gun safety. I am very lucky that I did not accidentally shoot my neighbour through the wall.
I had (Not anymore; I had to deport myself back to Canada) an AK-pattern rifle, old piece of shit I got for free from someone who replaced it with a sweet, tricked-out Galil. I never bother with the safety lever on my rifle, because, either it's unloaded in its bag in my closet, or it's pointing downrange at the gun range, so, whatever.
I get home from the range, take out my rifle to start cleaning it. There's no mag in there, it's fine. I fumbled a bunch with the little spring-loaded button you gotta press in to get the receiver casing off, and, I definitely slammed some stuff around in there a bunch.
When I finally got it off, a live round fell out, presumably from the chamber. I have no idea how it didn't go off.
It only took that one near-miss crisis to get me to triple-check every time since
Young girls don't engage in rough and tumble play to the degree that young boys do. It's just nature. Girls are not familiar with both giving and taking a punch, shove or kick... sometimes by your friends. Rough housing 101. It helps boys grow into men and realize that there are consequences to their actions. Ask any man who has engaged in military fighting about their mindset... it's usually full of caution & calculation.
Women don't have that perspective. They are full of righteous indignation and don't seem afraid to physically insert themselves into volatile situations. And with age, women just get worse about it. More brazen. I am of the opinion that this trend is more nurture these days being egged on by fellow leftists. This is fine with child rearing and maybe some other situations but not with public safety and the literal/physical public square.
It's shocking to watch these episodes of woman after woman cosplaying her way into danger and sometimes death.
Keep it up. We'll see where it ends. But you were warned.
Men grow out of this sort of juvenile idiocy with the assistance of an occasional ass-kicking by their acquaintances. Women get a free pass right up until the first and final bullet.
It seems as if in this game if you try to kill or at least drive over an ICE agent, their guns are lethal, not like in Call of Duty or the like where you get to live again. These really are very silly woman. The way they are eulogised is sickening and so predictable.
On top of moving the car she was also screaming something at the ICE agents. High pitched with a shriek.
Maybe the antiwar mid 60's started this feeling of fighting back at cops. In 59 or 60 my cousin and I got arrested in a burger place for loitering but in fact we had eaten and were just leaving. We explained this but we still got put in a paddy wagon and hauled to the precinct and joined two other guys in a two-person cell. Next morning the charges were dismissed. We never argued with the cops or even raised our voices.
I'm old and frail but still walk in my neighborhood. I also carry and have for many years. If anyone makes me feel my life is threatened, I am going to protect myself with deadly force. I live in a Stand Your Ground state.
How very dumb for people to do this. If you want to protest, then protest on the sidewalk. That is free speech. This is not.