Killing of Renée Good and subsequent actions
2026-01-10. Last updated 2026-01-25. These are personal notes, subject to change. None of this is legal advice.
A note on terms
It’s unclear to me whether Good’s legal first name includes the diacritic (Renee vs Renée), but it seems she preferred to use the diacritic, so I’ll use it too.
I use the term illegal immigrant in these notes. I don’t necessarily endorse it, but I also don’t endorse any of the alternatives. I don’t particularly care what short term we use to refer to people who reside in the United States without clear legal permission. I just want us to remember that they’re people, they have rights, and after a trial they may very well be found to be legal immigrants who just hadn’t completed the relevant paperwork due to their own ignorance or government failures.
When I say “all people,” I’m referring to all people under US sovereignty, unless otherwise specified. This includes native-born US citizens, naturalized US citizens, legal residents, legal immigrants, alleged illegal immigrants, immigrants known to be residing here illegally, and tourists. Probably some categories I’m forgetting, too. As long as they’re on US soil, they’re people under US sovereignty. Unless they’re, like, foreign diplomats or their children or something. That’s not so relevant here.
Killing of Renée Good
(list videos here)
Minutes
All times are local, AM
- Good’s wife was on-scene, exchanging angry words with ICE (ICE agent video)
- Protesters were “preventing [ICE] from leaving the scene” - Kristi Noem, Wednesday afternoon news conference
- Contradicts video evidence showing cars driving away after passing Good’s vehicle sideways in the road
- 9:35:05: Good’s car stopped diagonally according to Reini-Grandell footage - ABC News
- When was Good’s car was first stopped like this?
- Four cars pass her on video
- She waves them on
- “I’m not mad at you” - Good toward an ICE agent (unclear who) (heard on ICE agent video released by JD Vance)
- 9:36:51: Good’s wife and an ICE agent exchange words, record each other - ABC News
- 9:37:13: ICE agent Jonathan Ross fires three shots in 0.7 seconds (0, 0.4, 0.7 seconds since first shot) - ABC News
- 9:37:55: Ross approaches crashed vehicle, yells to “call 911”
- Did he do this while near the vehicle or afterward?
- Why didn’t he call 911 himself?
- What, if any, first aid did he administer? If none, why none?
- 2026-01-07 7:53 PM - Noem says officer who shot woman was previously hit, dragged by vehicle in June - CBS
- Officer was released from hospital within 10 hours
- She added that the officer, who has yet to be identified, was taken to the hospital after Wednesday’s shooting and has since been released
-
“Our officer followed his training, did exactly what he’s been taught to do in that situation and took actions to defend himself and defend his fellow law enforcement officers.”
- 2026-01-14 - ICE agent who shot Renee Good suffered internal bleeding, officials say - Ground News
- Fun fact: minor bruises are a form of internal bleeding
- Also, we have no evidence this is true. He was admitted to a hospital, standard procedure, and released the same day. Claims from officials are not reliable here—always find hard evidence.
Hours
- ICE was harassed by protesters all day
- violent? nonviolent? citations needed
- ICE vehicle stuck in the snow - Kristi Noem and other non-government sources
Days
- ICE deployed to Minneapolis (when? why, specifically?)
Months
- Trump admin has drastically escalated ICE operations
- Trump admin has allowed and even endorsed violence
- Pardoning all January 6th insurrectionists on Day 1
Years
- Trump himself worked to shut down bipartisan immigration policy during Biden’s administration
Decades
- Everlasting discussions around immigration policy in the United States
Killing of Alex Pretti
- 2026-01-25 - LIVE: Border Patrol’s Bovino holds briefing following fatal shooting of Minneapolis man | NBC News - NBC News on YouTube
- First 10m28s is blank, silent “standby” footage
- Quotations are from Greg Bovino at first.
- Quotations that end with an ellipsis (
...) lead directly into the next quote that starts with an ellipsis
- “The topic of choices”
- “One of the only freedoms that any of us really have”
- “Good choices are important in life”
- “Many actions that take place are due to our choices”
- “The choice to, say, cross the border illegally, that’s a choice that someone makes”
- Many are brought over as young children by their parents
- Many hope to be granted asylum, so the legality of their crossing is unclear until a fair trial is given, and even then it can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court
- “The choice not to utilize the CBP Home app, that is a choice”
- App might be a bit difficult to use despite someone’s best efforts
- We all know how finnicky apps can be!
- What about those without smartphones or cell service?
- “Use a five-year-old as a shield”
- Alex Pretti did not do this, by any stretch of the imagination
- “When, as a politician you choose collusion and corruption, as a choice, then there are consequences”
- Does he know he’s talking about the president that named him tactical commander?
- “One reason that the US Border Patrol and ICE are here in Minneapolis by the thousands is because of those choices”
- “when politicians, community leaders, and some journalists engage in that heated rhetoric we keep talking about…”
- “…when they make the choice to vilify law enforcement…”
- “…calling law enforcement names like Gestapo…”
- Oh, I’m sorry, are your feelings hurt? Anyway, you shot a man dead. And a woman. And that’s only the tip of the ICEberg.
- “…or using the term kidnapping…”
- As a reminder, at least one person has been literally kidnapped by an ICE impersonator. There may very well be more undocumented cases of this occurring.
- That said, no, I won’t refer to ICE detainments as kidnapping
- Again—does this even come close to justifying literally killing people like Pretti and Good?
- “…there are actions and consequences that come from those choices”
- OK, then sue them for libel or slander or something. Don’t kill observers. Do you or your agents never make choices? Why don’t we talk about those, Mr. Bovino?
- “when someone chooses to listen to that, that is a choice and there are consequences and actions there also. I think we saw that yesterday.”
- I’m enraged. Listening is not a death sentence, Mr. Bovino.
- “outcomes that law enforcement never wants to see. Law enforcement never wants to see a bad consequence due to a poor choice”
- If you don’t shoot him, you don’t have to see him die
- “these choices have ‘reverbations’ throughout society”
- I think you meant “reverberations,” Mr. Bovino. Also, the most reverberating choices are the ones of your agents to shoot a pummeled man 10 times.
- “yesterday, Border Patrol agents were engaged in a targeted law enforcement effort to apprehend this individual here, Mr. Jose Huerta Chuma”
- Why did you say his name like that, Mr. Bovino?
- Is he a convicted felon or just someone charged with crimes?
- How does his domestic assault compare to your killing of a pummeled citizen on the street?
- “this individual remains at large today”
- Shucks. Also, your agents pummeled and killed a citizen yesterday.
- “[Border Patrol agents] were disrupted, assaulted, and prevented from conducting that Title 8 mission by individuals…”
- The videos are clear: Pretti was focusing on helping up an unarmed woman who had been shoved and pepper-sprayed by agents for no clear reason
- Agents then immediately start shoving Pretti, pepper-spraying him, he falls to the ground, more run over, we know the rest. He’s dead now.
- I have seen no reports of law enforcement officers sustaining any injuries. The videos don’t show Pretti putting up any significant resistance or doing anything more than maybe causing minor bruises.
- Bruises can technically be referred to as internal bleeding.
- “Title 8” is the top-level of the US Code, it covers “Aliens and Nationality”. The US Code is all federal laws, aside from the Constitution.
- “…intent on making the choice to riot…”
- They were standing in the street helping each other up after being shoved and pepper-sprayed by agents for no clear reason. They were not rioting.
- “…create anarchy…”
- “…and to be a violent mob”
- Gee, if only your agents had body armor and heavy weaponry to protect themselves. If only they were extensively trained. If only they could resist pummeling and shooting a man with a phone in his hand. Then maybe fewer people would be angry. And fewer people would be killed by your agents.
- “this individual walks the streets today…”
- And so do thousands of your agents who apparently have done nothing wrong, given you’ve had every chance to talk about their choices and you chose not to, Mr. Bovino
- “…because of those choices made by politicians…”
- “…and those, perhaps weaker-minded, constituents…”
- “…that chose to follow directions of those politicians…”
- Bro are you talking about your agents here?? I know he’s not. But, like, dude. You’ve literally said you think we’re dumb. Are you genuinely blind to how much your words apply to your agents?
- “…sad state of affairs.”
- “enforcing the law is not a choice … that is a duty”
- “those laws were enacted by Congress, signed by the Executive, and upheld … most of the time, by the judiciary”
- Ah, we’re taking time to dig at the judicial branch, are we? Is that relevant in how your agents behaved yesterday?
- “do they [state and local law enforcement] support federal law enforcement going after Mr. Jose Huerta Chuma, or do they not”
- Seriously it’s a pattern now just say his name like a normal person, Mr. Bovino
- States are not obligated to provide resources to federal operations. States cannot obstruct federal operations either
- “we all make choices”
- And you’ve said nothing of the Border Patrol agents’ (plural!) choice to shoot pummeled and prone Alex Pretti, Mr. Bovino.
- “our … mission continues, unabated, here in Minneapolis…”
- Remember when they beat Rodney King, and the police chief denounced those officers? Were those good times?
- “…despite yesterday’s tragedy that was preventable by folks making better choices…”
- Sir, please look in the mirror.
- “…politicians, journalists, and would-be anarchists and rioters”
- The only killers yesterday were the two agents who shot a pummeled man on the street.
- Alex Pretti was an ICU nurse for Veterans Affairs.
- “This individual, from Laos, was apprehended within the last 24 hours”
- Thousands of agents and you can only share one apprehension per day??
- Also, this dude hasn’t even been convicted yet. He may very well be innocent.
- 17m15s: Bovino steps away, ICE leader Marcos Charles steps up
-
Marcos Charles is the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Acting Executive Associate Director. In this role, Mr. Charles leads ERO in its mission to protect the homeland through the arrest and removal of aliens who undermine the safety of our communities and the integrity of our immigration laws. - ICE Leadership - ice.gov
- “Commander Bovino has spoke about yesterday’s incident and situation”
- That’s one word for an extrajudicial killing
- “I also want to draw your attention to the continued uptick we’re seeing in violence against federal law enforcement officials”
- You mean you want to distract us?
- “not just here, but across the country”
- “the protestor literally bit off part of that agent’s finger”
- Yes, and I’m thankful we have evidence for this
- This should not be happening
- Also, your agents literally shot a pummeled man dead, and you have yet to say anything negative about those agents.
- “the officer received immediate medical attention on the scene”
- Alex Pretti didn’t receive immediate medical attention.
- “this kind of violence is unacceptable”
- Neither is the kind of violence against Alex Pretti
- “this kind of violence is not a coincidence”
- “When sanctuary politicians, activists, and the media work hard to create chaos and fear instead of using their platforms to reassure their communities, this is the result”
- False comforts are false, I don’t want a world where everyone reassures me without evidence
- I don’t think their goals are chaos and fear, I think their goals are truth. Do you have any evidence to the contrary, Mr. Charles?
- Also, again, your agents hold responsibility too. ICE killed Renee Good against all known protocol. No amount of rhetoric magically made Jonathan Ross unholster his gun and shoot a woman twice through her side window.
- “we’re out here to arrest dangerous criminals, illegal aliens”
- “since the beginning of this operation, we’ve arrested over 3,400 illegal aliens”
- “removing criminals, gang members, and terrorists”
- “detaining them in ICE custody for removal from the country”
- 6 detainees have died in custody already this month
- “those are criminals who won’t re-offend in our communities”
- The only crime all illegal immigrants share is residing illegally. They’re not all necessarily violent or dangerous. A vast majority are peaceful.
- All detainees have the Constitutional right to a trial and may very well be found to be legal permanent residents who simply hadn’t filed proper paperwork or had their paperwork lost by the government
- What about the thousands of ICE agents that are now literally killing citizens? Will they re-offend?
- “from the Ukraine”
- It’s called Ukraine, not the Ukraine. Have some respect.
- Mr. Charles lists off several people convicted of crimes. This is fine, convictions are different than just arrests. Many folks arrested are later found to be innocent of the crimes they are charged with. But if you’re convicted, you’ve already been found guilty in a trial.
- “so law-abiding citizens in this country, and in Minnesota, can sleep easy at night”
- Nobody is sleeping easier. You’re killing citizens.
- What about law-abiding non-citizens who are here legally? A telling choice of words, Mr. Charles.
- In this country and in Minnesota? Why not “including here in Minnesota”? Separating where you are from where everyone else is is a common psychological trick to deter empathy. Did you know that, Mr. Charles?
- 20m42s: Mr. Charles starts taking questions
- Reporter asks why one of the targets was released from ICE custody in 2018
- Mr. Bovino says he doesn’t know the particular case
- “That individual is now an illegal alien. It’s my mission to find this illegal alien before he harms another American citizen”
- OK but if you have to kill an American citizen to get there, was it worth it? Was it legal? Was it right?
- “Agitators, rioters, and anarchists prevented us from taking this individual into custody because of a very very chaotic scene”
- Your extensive training couldn’t get past a guy with a phone?
- “This individual should be in custody right now”
- And Alex Pretti should be alive.
- Reporter states “at no point is he seen brandishing a weapon”.
- Reporter states that Kristi Noem says he was brandishing a weapon
- Reporter: “In the video we see him on the ground with his hands on his head”
- Reporter: “We see an officer leaving—what appears to be—with a weapon after he extracted it from Pretti’s waist area”
- Reporter: “Did they seem him brandishing a weapon?”
- Bovino: “Many videos out there, many different accounts”
- Bovino: “That, folks, is why we have something called an investigation”
- Bovino: “All those minute details that will paint a true picture, [smiling] not a freeze frame concept, [serious] and paint a larger picture of what really happened”
- We have comprehensive video footage from multiple angles, not just pictures. We also have sworn witness testimony.
- Yes, I do want a full investigation that will get minute details, but the high-level picture is consistent and clear, and enough for us to reason about what happened. No minute detail will change this.
- Bovino: “You’ve got a lot of speculation in there”
- Bovino: “Let’s think about what those agents were doing on that scene making a split-second decision, you’ve had 24 hours to [smiling] try and [serious] armchair quarterback things, that agent had a split-second to make a decision”
- Bovino never answers the question: we don’t know if any officers saw him brandishing a weapon.
- “Was Alex Pretti armed when he was shot?”
- “Again, the investigation is going to uncover all those facts”
- “I wasn’t there wrestling that assaultive subject that was assaulting Border Patrol agents”
- “I’m not going to speculate”
- “If there’s an investigation … isn’t it possible this was a bad shooting? Or have you already concluded for yourself that this was justified?”
- “I’ve not concluded anything”
- Except for the part where Pretti was “assaultive”
- “What I know is that this individual was on the scene several minutes before the shooting interfering with a lawful legal ethical law enforcement operation to arrest Jose Huerta Chuma…”
- “…and again it’s back to choices”
- “when someone makes the choice to come into an active law enforcement scene…”
- If it’s public property with no clear signs telling people to leave, was it really a choice or just him living his life?
- “…interfere, obstruct, delay, or assault law enforcement officers…”
- He was helping a nonviolent woman who had been pepper-sprayed when agents first shoved him
- “…and they bring a weapon to do that, that is a choice that that individual made”
- Pretti had a legally registered firearm on him, but he didn’t necessarily bring it to obstruct law enforcement. That is a conclusion you came to, Mr. Bovino
- Reporter states that two agents likely fired shots, asks about the second one, asks if both agents are working
- “All agents that were involved in that scene are working, not in Minneapolis but in other locations, that’s for their safety”
- Wow, you’re out here to protect us, you shoot one of us, and then you leave for your own safety. Real classy
- “There’s this thing called doxxing”
- There’s also a thing called murder.
- Referring to number of shots and shooters: “I’m not gonna speculate on who did what”
- But you are going to say that the agent that fired the shots had 8 years of training? How do you know that? Do you not have accounts from any other agents stating whether they also fired shots? We’re not asking for speculation, we’re asking for verifiable truth. Did you not talk to these agents? You know who they are—you sent them away.
- Reporter makes the same argument I do
- “We need to make sure we’re talking truthfully and accurately”
- Yes, and transparently would be nice too.
- Reporter asks if either Mr. Bovino or Mr. Charles “plan on taking any accountability”
- Bovino: “You’re correct, two suspects have been shot…”
- “…and suspects that assault, delay, obstruct, or threaten a law enforcement officer’s life—”
- “—it goes back to the choices that we just talked about…”
- “…when individuals make poor choices, poor decisions…”
- Like choosing to shoot a pummeled person
- “…come into a law enforcement situation”
- Still unclear whether they were told to leave before they were “in the situation,” whatever that means
- “they managed to come home at the end of shift”
- 27m25s: Bovino smiles as he refers to “anarchists” and “rioters.”
- Pretti was an ICU nurse for the VA
- Bovino compares Alex Pretti to someone interrupting a bank robbery
- Pretti was helping someone who had just been pepper-sprayed. Pretti was a nurse.
- “We don’t need any help. Thank you”
- Neither Mr. Bovino nor Mr. Charles speak to accountability
- The press conference ends without incident
Illegal orders
Can federal agents disobey orders without quitting?
- Yes, when the orders are illegal
- Whistleblower Act
- Oath of office
- All federal agents take an oath to “uphold Constitution against all enemies”
- An illegal order is an enemy to the Constitution!
- 5 USC 3331: Oath of office
- An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
- Whistleblower Protections
Rights of illegal immigrants
See also 2026-01-13 - Why illegal immigrants have rights - markwiemer.com
-
United States Constitution
- Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
- Fourteenth Amendment: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person… the equal protection of the laws.”
- No mention of immigration status
-
1886-05-10 - Yick Wo v. Hopkins - Supreme Court via Justia
-
2001-06-28 - Zadvydas v. Davis - Supreme Court
-
2025-05-06 - Constitutional Rights Of Undocumented Immigrants: Do They Have Any? - Forbes
-
Rights of Immigrants - American Bar Association
-
You can help by ensuring that you or your passenger has a know your rights card.
-
The know your rights card should state that the 1 individual is exercising their right to remain silent.
-
The passenger may provide the card to the officer if questioned about their immigration status.
-
If the individual does not have a know your rights card, you could inform your passenger that they have the right to remain silent, and to refuse to speak with the officer unless they have an immigration attorney present.
-
Among other things, the passenger has the right to refuse to answer any questions about their immigration status, where they were born, or how they entered the US.
Illegal immigration and crime
This section is specific to illegal immigration, in an effort to determine just how much violence is at stake here.
Also, a quick note: why can’t we just catch these violent illegal immigrants the same way we catch other violent people? Just a thought.
Immigration and the economy
(coming soon)
Post-hoc accountability
Post-hoc = after the fact. Ideally, stuff like this never happens. No trial will bring back Good. That’s to say nothing of those who have died in ICE detainment centers, been deported (and brought back from) CECOT, or endured other assaults, detainments, deportations, harassment, and stress.
Use of force
- 1791-12-15 - Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution - Library of Congress
-
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- (That’s the entirety of the Fourth Amendment, 1791-12-15 is date of ratification)
- 1985 - Tennessee v. Garner - Supreme Court
- overturns “fleeing felon” rule
-
It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape.
- there has to be some (other) good reason to use lethal force
- 1989-05-15 - Graham v Connor et al - Supreme Court
- the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene
- 2014-05-27 - Plumhoff v. Rickard - Supreme Court via Justia
-
the police officers in this case did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they used deadly force to terminate a dangerous high-speed car chase
-
Rickard’s outrageously reckless driving—which lasted more than five minutes, exceeded 100 miles per hour, and included the passing of more than two dozen other motorists—posed a grave public safety risk
-
if officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, they need not stop shooting until the threat has ended
- 2025-05-15 - Barnes v. Felix - Supreme Court via Justia
- To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force under the Fourth Amendment, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment.
-
“totality of the circumstances” inquiry has no time limit
-
Prior events may show why a reasonable officer would perceive otherwise ambiguous conduct as threatening
- 2026-01-09 - The Legality of Deadly Force: Three Critical Questions about the ICE Shooting in Minneapolis - Verdict by Justia
- fleeing felon rule overturned in 1985 Tennessee v. Garner
-
The [Supreme] Court concluded that the officer’s use of deadly force to prevent the escape of a non-violent felon [Edward Garner] was unconstitutional, writing, “It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape.”
-
In place of the fleeing felon rule, the Court adopted the standard that has remained in place for the last forty years: The Fourth Amendment allows officers to use deadly force, meaning force that is substantially likely to cause serious physical harm or death, in response to what is reasonably perceived as an imminent threat of serious physical harm or death.
-
state authorities can charge, and have charged, federal agents for alleged violations of state law
-
whether it was reasonable to perceive Ms. Good’s actions as presenting an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm
-
cannot be answered by merely reviewing the various videos
-
the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene - Supreme Court, 1989 Graham v Connor et al
- ability, opportunity, and intention
- why was the officer in front of the vehicle?
- part of the totality of circumstances
- Ross was dragged by a vehicle on 2025-06-17
- could he have stepped out of the way instead of shooting?
- shooting doesn’t help
-
broadly recognized across police agencies and organizations
- 2020-07 National Consensus Policy and Discussion Paper on Use of Force
-
“Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving vehicle” when the vehicle is the only weapon involved unless other means of addressing the threat presented by the vehicle, such as moving out of the way, “have been exhausted (or are not present or practical).”
-
the Department of Homeland Security Use of Force policy discourages officers from shooting at moving vehicles
- 2023-02-06, Section V: Warning Shots and Disabling Fire
-
prohibited from discharging firearms solely … [t]o disable moving vehicles
- Only exceptions: warning shots and disabling fire: “may discharge firearms to disable moving vehicles, vessels, and other conveyances, and such disabling fire is classified as less-lethal force”
General coverage
- Killing of Renee Good - Wikipedia
- 2026-01-09 13:07 Pacific - Minneapolis ICE shooting: A minute-by-minute timeline of how Renee Nicole Good died - ABC News
- 2026-01-09 - There Will Be More Renee Goods - Jeremiah Johnson for The Dispatch
- 2026-01-13 - Truth - Hank Green on YouTube
- “the goal … is to establish dominance over the narrative as quickly and as forcefully as possible”
- “fundamentally disrespectful to the intelligence and agency of the American people”
- “do you think they would be lying about this if they didn’t think the shooting deserved more justification than the facts gave us?”
- “they’d stick to the truth if they thought the truth was enough”
- “they’re showing by their actions that they also don’t believe the shooting was justified, otherwise they wouldn’t be lying”
- 2026-01-13 09:37 Pacific - 🚨BREAKING: ICE agents in Minneapolis violently detained, threatened, and arrested a U.S. citizen for one reason only, he refused to prove his citizenship. - TheJFreakinC on Twitter
- Includes 3-minute bystander video with audio
- “You’re a fuckin’ bitch, and you’re gonna learn the fuckin’ hard way” - ICE agent to nonresisting detained US citizen. Three total agents were restraining the citizen. The comment was made in response the citizen saying “I’m not moving, bitch”
- “I just asked you for an ID that was it” - ICE agent
- Fourth Amendment protects all people on US soil against unreasonable search and seizure
- All people have the right to remain silent, though we must explicitly invoke it, see rights of illegal immigrants above. I believe this is Fifth Amendment. This includes refusing to identify yourself or hand over an ID. If this goes against the government’s wishes, they can try to get a warrant and then search you. Or they can claim some probable cause if they believe you’re likely to do something imminently dangerous based on your behavior. But if their claim is found to be unreasonable, then they’ve acted illegally and overstepped their power. As a reminder, none of this is legal advice.
- “You’re a fucking US citizen, you shouldn’t have done that, you dumbass” - Unclear what the ICE agent is referring to, detained citizen is not resisting and has not resisted
- “Unlawful arrest,” citizen repeats. “We’ll see about that,” ICE agent replies.
- “I’m fucking arresting child molesters” says the ICE agent, who is currently detaining a US citizen (we have no reason to believe that citizen is a child molester)
- Citizen is placed in ICE vehicle
- Vehicle does not move, video ends
- Unclear if he is arrested or just detained
- Unclear if/when he was released
- 2026-01-14 - The Goon Squad - Nick Catoggio for The Dispatch
- The Dispatch is a center-right publication
- Nick Catoggio writes daily newsletters for The Dispatch
- “ICE is discrediting immigration enforcement.”
- Data on American sentiment around Good, ICE, and immigration
-
It’s no exaggeration to say that a renegade ICE is the whole point of the second Trump administration.
-
It makes no sense as a strategy for effective law enforcement—but lots of sense as a pageant of domineering law-and-order assertiveness.
-
The Trump administration wants confrontation.
-
Its priority is to intimidate its cultural enemies with heavy-handed displays of authority
-
Normally when a federal agent shoots someone fatally, the criminal arm of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division will look into it to make sure the use of force was proper. In Good’s case, division head Harmeet Dhillon has already informed deputies that she won’t open an investigation, according to sources who spoke to the New York Times.
-
Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, said in a statement that “there is currently no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation” into the ICE agent.
- So much for “There will be an investigation” :(
- See also “post-hoc accountability”
-
[ICE is] reportedly now planning a “wartime recruitment” strategy that will target gun shows and military enthusiasts—not the sort of people, one would think, whose first impulse during confrontations will be to de-escalate.
-
In July of last year, Gallup found 79 percent of Americans now believe immigration is a good thing for the United States, the highest level recorded this century.
- See also illegal immigration and crime
-
Despite the fact that his party controls both chambers of Congress, he and it have done little to try to make his policies permanent by enacting them legislatively.
-
What’s the endgame? The administration isn’t going to deport 14 million illegal immigrants before January 2029, and no one would like the economic consequences if it did.
- See also “immigration and the economy”
-
It could be that they’re so drunk on ruthlessness that it’s become an end in itself
-
Or this might explain it: Trump and his party don’t intend to surrender power if they lose the next election.
- Chilling and extreme, but the full article makes a good case for it