Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) (part II)

OK, I did some addl research--some of the clips cut off what led up to the incident.

She was pulling out onto the road from her driveway when an ICE vehicle zoomed around in front of her. A second ICE vehicle was following and she waived for it to go around too. Instead ICE came stomping out of the vehicle, screaming profanities at her to get out of the car, and yanking on her door. Keep in mind, ICE are not police. She backed, turned, and pulled forward slowly to leave, and he shot her three times in the head.
Interesting. That happened in front of her residence?

Terrorism awareness course will train a driver who thinks someone is trying to block their vehicle (which is normally the first step in an ambush) to accelerate and drive around car trying to block you. You do not want to stay in the kill zone of an ambush.
The first ICE car did that. "Slalomed" around the blocking car.
The second car driver seems to have felt he could not or that this was an effort to impede ICE from doing its job, so he got out to see what she was up to. To do that, he needs to speak to the driver.
If she was just being careless/reckless in her driving (pulling out of her driveway in such a way as to fail to yield the right of way to vehicles already on the street). That is a local or state offense. I live on a busy road so I know I have to leave my driveway carefully and in such a way as to yield the right of way to vehicles already on the road.
Maybe she felt that, since the first car had slalomed around her car, the second ICE car could as well. When the second ICE car driver stopped, got out wearing ICE gear so clearly law enforcement, and told her to get out, it is probably best to stop and get out or, at the very least, roll the window down and ask whether she should get out right here (blocking the road) or pull back into her driveway so as to not block traffic before she got out of the car to talk to the ICE officer.
I have no idea what these ICE officers had experienced earlier in that day from people trying to impede them. This probably looked like more of the same. This would illustrate the frame of mind of the ICE officers in this case.
I am a little curious why someone was filming the encounter. I normally do not walk around Hooterville filming all day every day, so why was this filmer filming this encounter? It seems likely that the encounter was a set up. "Hey, it looks like ICE is in the neighborhood and will be coming my house. I'm going to pull out in front of them at this choke point with cars already parked legally on both sides of the street, to slow them down while they sort this out. If enough people do that around the city, ICE will waste their entire day dealing with 'innocent delays' like this. We'll be social justice heroes. Make sure you film this for posterity or for training purposes later."

I'm not happy this woman is dead. When politicians heighten tensions, people are going to make snap decisions that have serious consequences. Good made a couple. So did the ICE officer.
 

Jesse Watters highlights that Renee Nicole Good, the woman killed by ICE, had "pronouns in her bio" and "leaves behind a lesbian partner and a child from a previous marriage"




And now the “othering” of the victim begins, right on schedule.

How this is worse than paying a porn star for sex while you're married to your pregnant third wife (after cheating on the first two) is beyond me, I'll ask at Sunday School this week.
 
I'm not happy this woman is dead. When politicians heighten tensions, people are going to make snap decisions that have serious consequences. Good made a couple. So did the ICE officer.
And that's where I am. Lost in the shuffle is the fact that people are being encouraged to insert themselves into these situations. I will defend to the death the right of people to protest, but once you attempt to hamper an operation, bad things tend to happen. And I suspect that is the whole point. Eventually something like this was going to happen; it was just a matter of time. I do feel bad for this woman; not just because she lost her life, but also because she seems to be an expendable asset in this political row.

People on the right keep bringing up Ashley Babbit's shooting on J6, but my opinion is the same as the one I have here: if she hadn't put herself in that situation, this would not have happened. Two women dead, neither of whom should have been there. I hate it, but I can't change it. People need to ask themselves what the worst-case scenario is before they act and based on that decide how to proceed. This has kept me alive for 51 years and I suspect will continue to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlistarWills
Hennepin County DA has opened an investigation. I suspect will indict the ICE officer. A few problems.

28 USC §1442 A federal officer can have taken the case from the state level and try it at the federal level.

In Re Neagle (1890) says federal officers in commission of their federal duties cannot be prosecuted in a state court. So I guess, if the ICE officer were to be arrested, the US DA could file a writ of habeas corpus and demand Minnesota hand him over.

28 USC §2241 stipulates that:
Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.
(c)The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless—
(2)He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or

If Hennepin County goes as far as arresting the ICE officer, the federal government will get him released.
 
Hennepin County DA has opened an investigation. I suspect will indict the ICE officer. A few problems.

28 USC §1442 A federal officer can have taken the case from the state level and try it at the federal level.

In Re Neagle (1890) says federal officers in commission of their federal duties cannot be prosecuted in a state court. So I guess, if the ICE officer were to be arrested, the US DA could file a writ of habeas corpus and demand Minnesota hand him over.

28 USC §2241 stipulates that:
Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.
(c)The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless—
(2)He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree of a court or judge of the United States; or

If Hennepin County goes as far as arresting the ICE officer, the federal government will get him released.
I've realized this from the beginning. These guys they're hiring have practical immunity...
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH
I've realized this from the beginning. These guys they're hiring have practical immunity...
Which is why, I believe, it is best if local authorities enforce the law.

I was pondering this yesterday. The Founders, in crafting the Constitution's Article IV Section 2 did not want police from one of the states enforcing the law in a neighboring state. The agreement was, if someone committed a crime in State A and fled as a fugitive from justice into State B, when the governor of State A requested it, the State B police will arrest him and hand him over to the authorities of State A. This prevents foreign police from mucking around in a state to which they have no loyalty, which is bound to cause friction.

The same goes, to a limited degree with federal police in a state. The best way to keep ICE from going around arresting fugitives is for local police to do that. I understand that Minnesotans do not like federal immigration law as it now stands. Fine. Petition your Congressional delegation to amend the federal immigration law. Really don't like it, peaceably assemble and hold a protest. Until the law is changed, however, local police need to do it, not just wink-wink, "trying to," really do it. That will keep ICE from attempting to do it in, as we have seen, a heavy-handed manner.
 
The best way to keep ICE from going around arresting fugitives is for local police to do that.
for the most part (and fwiw ;) ) i agree with your post.

but i think the premise that what ice is doing is arresting “fugitives” is flawed. based on their actions and many of the areas they have been targeting, they are being used as trump’s personal enforcers and basically have free reign to do whatever the hell they want to and that is extremely dangerous
 
Last edited:
for the most part (and fwiw ;) ) i agree with your post.

but i think the premise that what ice is doing is arresting “fugitives” is flawed. based on their actions and many of their areas they have been targeting, they are being used as trump’s personal enforcers and basically have free reign to do whatever the hell they want to and that is extremely dangerous
I agree with you. I have yet to see how ICE is selecting whom they interview and why. How do they know to intercept Person A but not Person B? If the guidance is "Grab everyone who looks Hispanic and take them down to the ICE station for processing," then sure, that's improper. Do we know that is what ICE is doing?

I have a nephew and a niece whose father is one generation removed from Mexico. My nephew and niece look Hispanic, but both were born in Houston. I don't want them rolled up by an over-zealous ICE agent.
 
My take on the whole thing is this:

You can't have a civilization without law.
You can't have law without someone to enforce the law. That does not mean, police officers never break the law, sometimes they do.
If whenever there is a controversy involving an action by a law-enforcement agent, you always throw the law-enforcement agent under the bus, then what you will get is cops who will pretend not to see or hear crimes being committed you'll have more crime and more victims of crime.
In an interaction between law-enforcement and a citizen, the police first and foremost are going to protect themselves because they've been to too many police funerals. During an investigation, if a police officer tells a citizen to do something, the citizen should do it unless it's illegal, immoral or dangerous.
There’s nothing illegal, immoral, or dangerous about getting out of your car to talk to a police officer. That does not mean an admission of guilt on the part of the citizen. It does not mean that the citizen agrees with the law being enforced. It does not mean agreement with how the police officer is enforcing the law.
If the cop is wrong, you can take it up with his supervisor the next day, not adjudicate it on the street.
I think it is rash to call this a murder. If the authorities believe there is enough evidence to lodge criminal charges, society will impanel a jury to weigh the evidence and the law and render a verdict.
I do not want anyone to be shot by the police. Ever. Period.
But I think by following my way of looking at matters, we can have civilization, the rule of law, and have fewer people shot by police. And that's really my goal.
 
Last edited:

  • Federal agents in Portland, Oregon, were involved in a shooting that sent two people to the hospital, Portland Police said.
  • The shooting occurred a day after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good as she was driving away in an SUV in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
 
  • Angry
  • Sad
Reactions: UAH and 92tide

  • Federal agents in Portland, Oregon, were involved in a shooting that sent two people to the hospital, Portland Police said.
  • The shooting occurred a day after an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good as she was driving away in an SUV in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
the word has come down from dear leader. people need to be brought in line and shown who's the boss
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH
If whenever there is a controversy involving an action by a law-enforcement agent, you always throw the law-enforcement agent under the bus, then what you will get is cops who will pretend not to see or hear crimes being committed you'll have more crime and more victims of crime.
Now do what happens if you never hold police accountable. You'll have much better real-world examples.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: UAH and 92tide
Now do what happens if you never hold police accountable. You'll have much better real-world examples.
Six sentences later, I said this: "If the authorities believe there is enough evidence to lodge criminal charges, society will impanel a jury to weigh the evidence and the law and render a verdict."
Cops who have broken the law get convicted all the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Islander
Which is why, I believe, it is best if local authorities enforce the law.

I was pondering this yesterday. The Founders, in crafting the Constitution's Article IV Section 2 did not want police from one of the states enforcing the law in a neighboring state. The agreement was, if someone committed a crime in State A and fled as a fugitive from justice into State B, when the governor of State A requested it, the State B police will arrest him and hand him over to the authorities of State A. This prevents foreign police from mucking around in a state to which they have no loyalty, which is bound to cause friction.

The same goes, to a limited degree with federal police in a state. The best way to keep ICE from going around arresting fugitives is for local police to do that. I understand that Minnesotans do not like federal immigration law as it now stands. Fine. Petition your Congressional delegation to amend the federal immigration law. Really don't like it, peaceably assemble and hold a protest. Until the law is changed, however, local police need to do it, not just wink-wink, "trying to," really do it. That will keep ICE from attempting to do it in, as we have seen, a heavy-handed manner.

Agreed. I'm all for the states taking care of their own business. That means, unless in area where the Constitution provides otherwise, they govern themselves ... and they also pay their own bills. That concept long been in decline. Want an infrastructure project in your city? Cool. Said city and state taxpayers take care of it. Want to allow criminals and fraudsters to run amok in your territory? Cool. Reap the benefits and consequences.

But, what we have now is states getting access for federal money to pay to the mistakes they made and to bail them out of poor financial choices. And then, when the feds decide that the Golden Rule means "he who has the gold makes the rules," the state politicians pitch a fit. You shouldn't have it both ways. Make your own decisions and pay for them. Or shut up.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: CrimsonJazz
Advertisement

Advertisement

Latest threads