ICE
- Thread starter poochyena
- Start date
Can't help but notice a couple things:
-None of this disagrees ICE did an extrajudicial street execution of the mom of a 6 year old that wasn't any sort of villain or doing anything approaching a capitol offense
-None of this disagrees ICE is deliberately configured for the extraducidial street execution of people not doing anything approaching a capitol offense to be an inevitable, and hence, intended, outcome.
-If they can do this to Renee Nicole Good and it becomes justified because she was a terrorist, then it is obvious that there is no one they can't do it to for any reason or no reason. You will be shot and then you will be a terrorist. The only criteria necessary to be a terrorist is to be shot by ICE.
Soriak, I'm curious if you can explain what durable barrier there is to the admin's or indeed your own justifications being employed for the extrajudicial killing of literally anyone at any time for any reason or no reason. Seems to me the arguments you're using are fully generalizable. They're crap, but they don't seem to have anything built in that would make them less applicable to killing literally anyone else in the country.
So I would like to explain how your argument is anything other than carte blanche for ICE doing extrajudicial street executions, because if that's what you're arguing I would like some clarity on that.
I'm sure hearing about the literal hellholes (both domestic and internationally) anyone picked up by ICE gets sent to people are now dead shit terrified of getting sent there too and in a panic will do literally ANYTHING to try and avoid getting sent there.
Fmr. Gov Ventura is an interesting fellow for sure with a pretty mixed record but listening to him get fired up about this, I can't say I disagree with him (except for maybe the second term thing...)
The key is "intentionally". Said witness never says that word or a similar one in the interview segment.
Good was trying to turn around a big American vehicle on a street -- and a Honda is >5m long (exact length depending on exact year), and has a turning cicle of 11.5m to 12m (again depending on exact year). A US 2-lane (1 in each diection) is 7-7.3m wide, 9m if it includes sidewalk parking or bike lanes.
You can't U-turn a Honda Pilot on such a street without a 3-point turn.
While a driver is executing the 3-point turn, they can't avoid blocking the 2 lanes for the duration.
QED. Psychofant was lying.
This is how I understand Soriak’s argument:
Argument A: ICE agents should avoid creating situations that significantly increase the likelihood that they will need to use deadly force (like stepping in front of cars).
Soriak’s first counterargument: The agent was justified in creating such a situation because he was traumatized by past experiences from being dragged after he created another situation that placed him in danger.
Soriak’s second counterargument: The agents were justified in creating such a situation because local police failed to provide assistance.
Neither justification addresses the core issue—whether agents ought to create situations that materially increase the likelihood that deadly force will be used.
Argument A: ICE agents should avoid creating situations that significantly increase the likelihood that they will need to use deadly force (like stepping in front of cars).
Soriak’s first counterargument: The agent was justified in creating such a situation because he was traumatized by past experiences from being dragged after he created another situation that placed him in danger.
Soriak’s second counterargument: The agents were justified in creating such a situation because local police failed to provide assistance.
Neither justification addresses the core issue—whether agents ought to create situations that materially increase the likelihood that deadly force will be used.
No, his argument is that the made-up bullshit about blue cities releasing violent criminals justifies murder.
Jonathan E Ross (quoting his name from the Guardian, not a doxxing) is a mentally competent adult until a court has ruled otherwise.
Let's assume everything in your quote is correct (we both have no way to verify).
If Ross didn't feel he was competent to do his job without turning violent and endangering people, he had no business reporting to work shifts, armed. Every incident I have read described related to ICE/CBP personnel shows me that they get zero training how to use firearms when there are civilians nearby. This requires long training and psychological profiling in every civilized country.
Even here (Israel), where police have been turning increasingly violent towards protestors after 3 years of continuous protest, some with multiple hundred thousand people in a single location and >2M participants in protests overall -- there hasn't been a single incident of a cop using a firearm, not even warning shots.
... and then use that as an excuse to shoot people.
... and whether you, I, or anyone else in this forum will be next.
How does one avoid being within a block of an amped up, 'roid raged psychotic ICE agent when they're roaming the country looking to abduct and shoot people?
At certain point, this will escalated into unrest and war. I am fairly certain people are hoping for escalation and betting on the fact that their side are more willing to do violence.
Why stop them from escaping? They have a car, it's got a license plate and registration. You know where they live. Why escalate a situation by putting LEOs at risk of death, when you can just catch them at home.
This woman was NOT a violent offender, or an illegal immigrant. There's no reason for ICE to escalate a confrontation with someone "blocking the street" by blocking her in, ensuring the street stays blocked, rather than letting her leave and sending someone to meet her at home later. They made it worse for themselves, in pursuit of an excuse to summarily execute a random mother.
They weren't conducting a raid she got in the way of. They weren't executing their duties. They were driving, and she wanted to turn.
Then they executed her.
After that, they blocked the street to prevent EMS and doctors from providing aid to an innocent victim.
The aid that THEY should have been trained to provide, and should have been providing immediately after she was incapacitated.
These are the Brownshirts.
You are supporting a batch of untrained, violent, extremist thugs, many recruited from pardoned insurrectionists, that if we applied the same standard as you're using, should have been summarily executed the second they TOUCHED a DC cop, much less after they hospitalized 15 of them, and permanently disabled multiple.
But real law enforcement shouldn't just kill random drivers because they're not following contradictory directions.
This isn't the first or the last time ICE will brazenly kill Americans because they were inconvenient. And you support that.
I hope you have a long, lonely life to reflect on what you're advocating for.
Many moons ago, I watch a Star War/Cop parody short file.
It starts with this line: "All suspects are guilt. Otherwise they would not be suspects". This seems to be the argument some people are advocated, including some posters here.
I do not think we should ever need to defend why this quote/statement is wrong.
It starts with this line: "All suspects are guilt. Otherwise they would not be suspects". This seems to be the argument some people are advocated, including some posters here.
I do not think we should ever need to defend why this quote/statement is wrong.
Last edited:
Edit: Disregard - was trying to delete a draft and wonkiness with cell keyboard caused me to post.
Grant Karpik
Ars Scholae Palatinae
From the notorious left wing organization known as the Cato Institute:
"Of people booked into ICE custody this fiscal year (since October 1, 2025):
- Nearly three in four (73 percent) had no criminal conviction.
- Nearly half had no criminal conviction nor even any pending criminal charges.
- Only 8 percent had a violent or property criminal conviction.
- Only 5 percent had a violent criminal conviction.
- A majority of criminal convicts had vice, immigration, or traffic convictions.
Since October 1, only 8 percent of detained persons had either a violent or property crime. As many people were detained with an immigration conviction (e.g., illegal entry/reentry) as violent convicts."
https://www.cato.org/blog/5-ice-detainees-have-violent-convictions-73-no-convictions
The parody was referencing a real quote from Reagan’s attorney general, Ed Meese: “But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect.”
So this has been mainstream Republican thinking for quite some time, and has been used as a rationale for denying rights to suspected criminals.
Right, not in demonstrations, they are better trained than that, but Israel is a bad comparison, because one class of citizens do get randomly executed for no reason by police all the time with similar made up excuses as in the US.
Anyone see the irony in Trump’s threats to the (appalling) Iranian regime if they shoot protestors?
I'm not making that argument. I think he will get a very severe sentence, possibly up to life in prison without parole, and he should. But throwing "bad" people in jail doesn't fix systemic problems: he's not the first, and he won't be the last.
The task of ICE is to deport people who are in the country illegally. One way to do this is to pick up people who have already been arrested or who have criminal sentences that are ending, before they are being released. Some states are actively refusing to cooperate with ICE. So what happens is they release someone, ICE then tracks that person down, and ICE then performs an arrest. That's an entirely unnecessary risk, because some politicians are scoring cheap points on immigration from low-information voters. These are, by definition, people who have been arrested or sentences for crimes, and hence not random moms from the neighborhood church. This is not the group that needs to be protected.
Reminds me of the article -- I think it was in the New Yorker -- that talked about someone who had been living for 50 years in New York and was now getting deported. What they failed to mention until the end of the article is that of those 50 years, 25 were in prison for murdering someone during a robbery.
As you said, I never made the argument that this shooting was justified or that the agent shouldn't face any punishment. It wasn't justified. But I don't feel a whole lot better if this guy goes to prison for life, because (1) that woman is still dead, and (2) she won't be the last one. It should be about coming up with solutions that minimize this risk going forward. And maybe not releasing people from prisons so they have to get re-arrested would be a pretty obvious start.
The crackdown on illegal immigrants isn't going to end for at least another three years. The administration has made that pretty clear. And at least when it comes to people who have been convicted of crimes, support for deporting them is extremely high.
The same thing they've always done here: propagating right-wing narratives by credulously endorsing and claims that support said narratives, while simultaneously applying a puerile brand of amped-up pseudo-Socratic skepticism to assertions of plain fact.
They won't be missed.
If the man had PTSD about vehicle incidents, why did he step in front of her vehicle where he could get hit, and why didn't he then get the fuck out of the way when she tried to move it away from him and instead bring himself closer?
Why is this even considered relevant other than to suggest that ICE don't even take care of their own employees, and have chosen to put potentially dangerous people on the streets with lethal armaments and an overinflated sense of duty, predictably resulting in tragedies?
Why do you think it's bad that communities wouldn't want to deal with ICE, an over-funded, over-mandated, under-regulated agency that is sending masked thugs out to abduct and murder people?
Why doesn't your estimation of "why this is happening" factor in that ICE now function as a fascist government's unaccountable enforcement arm?
Why are you apportioning blame to communities for the purely optional damage being done to them?
Why are you babbling about child abusers when it's not even remotely relevant?
Obviously this is all rhetorical, and intended to elaborate the vast gulf between what you've written and the more plausible interpretations of the facts before us.
Personally, I'm quite sure that you're doing this the same reason that Psychophant does; you're just managing to do a better job of not crossing the blurry line between "could just be painfully ignorant" and "is probably a troll pushing rhetoric intended to justify and validate far-right violence".
Responding to the part in bold. The biggest giveaway with people maliciously parroting the fascist line is how they expend precisely zero effort squaring the circle that deluded participant in an actual riot Ashlee Babbitt is a patriot who was murdered, but literally anyone else who happens to somewhat inconvenience an LEO is a rioting terrorist who deserved whatever they got in response.
Individuals wil usually try to tie any interlocutor up in their own personal shine on whatever nuance fascinates them, but ultimately they tell the same story: our lies make us better and stronger than you weasels with your facts and logic.
I'm white and I've never trusted a cop as far as I could throw them.
Hell I don't trust anyone with any type of 'authority'.
Most of the detainees have no history of criminal sentences as others mentioned. So why were they arrested?
Are you saying that ICE detains people and local authorities let them go? Because outside of the states like Florida who are providing detention space, ICE are the ones who maintain custody of all detainees.
Okay, so if someone can show you evidence that people who aren't arrested or sentenced for other crimes were detained by ICE, would you concede that your definition of who is being arrested is wrong?
I can also make up memories of articles I don't cite. But it's not evidence.
So, let me get this straight. It sounda like your argument is:
What's the point of sending someone who did something wrong that resulted in someone's death to prison because the victim is still dead. And other people are going to be killed in any case.
Am I understanding that framing correctly?
But many (if not most) of them haven't been convicted of crimes. So it sounds like you admit that those deportations aren't popular.
You keep talking about systemic failures, but nothing you cite is a systemic failure.
ICE maintain custody of detainees, so any argument about lical authorities letting them go is incorrect.
The real systemic failures I see are the following:
1) ICE is being ordered to meet daily quotas of arrests and detainees, and agent are being incentivized to make arrests in any way possible with monetary bonuses
2) ICE is not requiring agents to follow DHS use of force policies which require DHS officers to not create situations where it increases the chance of deadly force. And thus, there are no immediate consequences for agents to escalate, thereby incentivizing them to make more arrests (see systemic failure #1).
Charlie Munger once said that if you show me the incentives, I can show the outcome. I have provided some of the incentives here. Do they match the outcomes?
I am wondering where the line between argument, bad faith arguments, and misinformation lies.
Last edited:
Furthermore - when an agent creates such a situation that results in someone being killed, does that negate justification of the use of deadly force?
Oh, it does. The reason I phrase it that way is to invoke the legal doctrine of officer-created jeopardy.
I learned not to trust Internet Sleuthing after the Boston Marathon bombing, and as usual AI is only making the situation worse.
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/08/nx-s1-5671740/ice-minneapolis-grok-ai-renee-nicole-good
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/08/nx-s1-5671740/ice-minneapolis-grok-ai-renee-nicole-good
After watching the videos a couple of times and reading up:
1. This was a normal mom at the wrong time at the wrong place and in panic, not a domestic terrorist as human garbage like Noem and Vance ignorantly tried to spin it. Just shameful.
2. It was no self defence, certainly not after the first shot.
3. This was really, really shoddy policework. I talked to a cousin of mine who works with the German police and he said that the first rule when stopping cars is to never, ever get in front of the vehicle (or the direct back, but at least you can see when the car goes into reverse) Not to mention the unwarranted aggression like running to the car, trying to open the door and not properly explaining or authenticating themselves. Are the no rules concerning this for plain clothes cops in the US? Just a bunch of aggressive, evil amateurs. As the tree is, so the fruit.
1. This was a normal mom at the wrong time at the wrong place and in panic, not a domestic terrorist as human garbage like Noem and Vance ignorantly tried to spin it. Just shameful.
2. It was no self defence, certainly not after the first shot.
3. This was really, really shoddy policework. I talked to a cousin of mine who works with the German police and he said that the first rule when stopping cars is to never, ever get in front of the vehicle (or the direct back, but at least you can see when the car goes into reverse) Not to mention the unwarranted aggression like running to the car, trying to open the door and not properly explaining or authenticating themselves. Are the no rules concerning this for plain clothes cops in the US? Just a bunch of aggressive, evil amateurs. As the tree is, so the fruit.
Last edited:
IT's obvious from the first part of the video that she was trying to leave, she politely waves another car to pull out ahead of her. The Trunk rolls up and she waves for them to drive past until the Agents jump our and start screaming at her and swearing. She tries to back up, in order to avoid them, and then panics and tries to drive away before being shot.
It is not at all surprising the the fascist argument is that the ARMED supposedly trained government officers Panicking is excused but a normal citizen is supposed to act like a robot acting rationally at all times.
While looking for another issue I watched a Reel on IG that showed ICE pulling over an Indigenous American, and the agents gave the driver orders to 'get out of the vehicle and comply' AND 'stay in the vehicle and do not move'.
The person was forcefully pulled out of their vehicle and roughed up while their passenger was detained, and also punched. All because the ICE agents felt they were not fast enough at providing id (the passenger dropped it) AND looked like immigrants.
What is the correct action when you are given two opposing orders that mean you cannot act in either way? And now you have to worry that getting it wrong for one or both orders will result in your death?
It was worse than that. She was having conflicting “orders” screamed at her in three different ways by three different people. One person was telling her to leave. One was telling her to stop. One was telling her to open her door.
The random lady on the street is apparently supposed to have ice water in her veins and calmly negotiate the discrepancies, among these raving manic lunatics representing the government who are brandishing firearms, in order to avoid being summarily executed.
Seems perfectly reasonable.
That's not even police stuff, it's just common sense. I never ever get close to the front of a running car, even if the person inside the car is the lovliest person ever something as simple as the car being manual and them being in gear and accidentally taking their foot off the clutch could make the car jump forwards slightly. Certainly not enough to kill me (barring a catastophic head/pavement interaction I guess), but even a slight nudge by 2 tons of car would be more than enough to for example fuck up a knee.
And let's not get into how people tend to fuck around with their phones, babies, pets, etc etc instead of paying attention, there are endless ways that could end badly for me without the driver even being stressed out.
Yes, but this is perhaps the easiest measure by which to assess the U.S. as an authoritarian state. Not just officially, but culturally.
There is no bar high enough that a civilian can achieve to warrant exoneration, and there is no bar low enough that the government can fail to clear to warrant prosecution.
The civilians must behave perfectly against arbitrary expectations and the government officials have absolutely no expectations for which their behavior must conform or comport to.
That is an authoritarian society and state. Which, as always, makes me ask myself, “What the hell are we even clinging to here?”
There is no bar high enough that a civilian can achieve to warrant exoneration, and there is no bar low enough that the government can fail to clear to warrant prosecution.
The civilians must behave perfectly against arbitrary expectations and the government officials have absolutely no expectations for which their behavior must conform or comport to.
That is an authoritarian society and state. Which, as always, makes me ask myself, “What the hell are we even clinging to here?”
The bulllshit is that this fucker stepped in front of the car to film her with his phone instead of paying attention, and already had. His hand was on his gun as he did so.
Someone should compile video of all the right wingers in previous years saying "If a group of people surround your vehicle and you are in fear of your life, you should gun it and drive into anyone in front of your car"
We know they're hypocrites...