"Fucking bitch"
And people here defend his actions as self defense. He was angry. He shot in anger. This is murder.
What the admin is doing is treason.
Edit at 21:29 UTC: BBC has edited the article to include the following line: "In the final part of the video the car is seen veering down the road. The ICE agent swears." Again, that "final part" has been edited out entirely. It shows that the agent was not affected by the SUV, and maintains his iPhone in his offhand recording the incident without issue. "The ICE agent swears." is used euphemistically to obfuscate what he actually did and said, which was to angrily call the victim a "fucking bitch".
Are ICE agents like police? In the sense that, can they detain someone they suspect of being a criminal, etc...?
But they can in fact arrest people (including US citizens) who are impeding/obstructing their duties.
> 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.
However, our Supreme Court is out of control, and Justice Kavanaugh recently issued a ruling allowing racial profiling, meaning people can be detained for looking a certain way. These sorts of racially motivated detentions are now known as "Kavanaugh Stops": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kavanaugh_stop
So ICE agents don't have to suspect them of any crime; if they "look illegal", they can be detained and deported without due process.
From the Atlantic:
> New deportation officers at ICE used to receive about five months of federal-law-enforcement training. Administration officials have cut that time roughly in half, partly by eliminating Spanish-language courses. Academy training was shortened to 47 days, three officials told me, the number picked because Trump is the 47th president.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/08/ice-rec...
ICE agents are police officers and have all the powers that police officers have. They're under federal jurisdiction rather than state, county, or city. The only limitations are what does or does not fall under their jurisdiction. For instance, they don't have the power to enforce traffic laws (because those aren't federal), but they can certainly arrest you for breaking federal laws or detain you while investigating them.
As I see those laws are not really knew, they were just not enforced during the previous administration as strictly, but people who broke those laws did it consciously.
Do people really care about the people who broke the laws or just hate the current administration so much?
Illegal presence is a civil violation. Civil violations are not crimes (in the sense the law is divided into civil and criminal law):
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-illeg...
Sneaking across the border is a crime. Overstaying your visa (70-80% of "illegal immigration") is not a crime. It is more analogous to a parking ticket in terms of severity.
The thing is - for a long time immigration was not enforced because the legals paths were blocked off to create a class of cheap labor to drive the American economy. It worked, and it source mostly jobs which citizens did not want to do. (Not entirely, and yes it did depress wages)
It is a complicated issue.
The Polish and eastern European community by me doesn't seem to be having any deportation issues, despite having a lot of illegal immigrants via visa overstay.
Being black and being accused of eating pets causes a great many problems.
In fact, they are propping up our economy. I had suspected you were posting in bad faith; now I know for sure. Our immigrant population - legal and not - solve more problems than they cause, and the numbers show that.
Thanks for putting the lie - explicitly, in your own words - to the idea this is about the law. You were fine with European illegal immigrants which cause similar amounts of issues (few) to Latinos. The difference is ethnicity. Full stop.
I don't really care one bit about their legal status- these folks are a part of my community and I don't want them to be kidnapped.
That is the whole thing.
If a persona can live here and have a house and a job, I don't think it's okay to kidnap them.
End of story.
The "sanctuary state" status of blue states has gotten the left used to ignoring that particular set of laws, so it's not seen as a bad thing. Problem is, that status never included active resistance - they used to just skirt legality by simply not cooperating instead of actively working against ICE.
Let me try to correct your mistaken assumptions.
> HN is so much against people whose job is to arrest people who broke federal laws.
I don't know of anyone on HN who is 'much against' legitimate law enforcement. We very much want people who break federal laws to be arrested.
> those laws are not really -new, they were just not enforced during the previous administration as strictly (forgive my spelling correction here, but it is an important word. Correct me if I misunderstand you).
I think you might be referring to things like the DACA[0][1] program, which was created during Obama's administration, cut back during Trump 1.0, restored to its former glory during the Biden oasis, and has fallen out of favor again under Trump[2]. I'm just guessing. But understand that "not enforced...as strictly" is a political talking point and bone of contention. It's a judgment call that history will make (if the generations to come bother to remember us).
> Do people really care about the people who broke the laws or just hate the current administration so much?
Are those our only choices? This is what I've always known as a "loaded question" (when did you stop beating your wife?).
Two choices, one or the other, to help you to understand this reality?
I'm sorry xiphias2, but are you for real? Your post doesn't match up to my quick & dirty assessment of your profile and previous comments. Your post reeks of pretense: has someone else taken over your account?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_Action_for_Childhood_... [1] https://www.uscis.gov/DACA [2] https://www.uscis.gov/daca
U.S. politics is not something people from other countries like me can just ignore as it affects our lives as well (what NATO does just as an example).
At the same time I'm not living there and some things are just hard to understand / imagine, and I believe I'm not alone in this (eventhough I love visiting USA).
Of course I have my political opinions but I am respectful and actually like to discuss life experiences my friends who were ,,forced'' on the other side of the political spectrum.
In my experience there is usually one or two emotionally/financially charged case that makes people choose a side and then get in that viewpoint (I'm no different).
What's not productive (and what I have unfortunately felt here in political threads) is just simply downvoting eachother.
> they were just not enforced during the previous administration as strictly
They were not enforced so cruelly, perhaps, but the Biden administration was not exactly lax about this stuff. They were deporting people in record numbers. They just weren't tossing aside things like basic human dignity, respect for the law, and due process when doing so.
"Without a doubt he murdered her"
"She tried to run him over, clearly it was justified"
To me this video confirms that the story from the administration that he was run over and hospitalised is nonsense.
It also confirms that the couple were being confrontational and obstructionist, but I still don’t think that’s a reason for her to die.
A rational organisation would reflect and ask how this sort of scenario can be handled better in future, but that doesn’t seem likely here.
However, I don't think he should have killed her. I think he went into the confrontation looking for an excuse to murder a protester and she unfortunately gave him that opportunity. I think he absolutely murdered her and had no moral reason to do so. He may have had a legal reason to fire on her though, but I think he didn't need to and just arresting her would have been good enough. She would have easily been found guilty of assaulting a police officer or whatever the equivalent is for ICE agents. I think that was good enough and he went way overboard and wanted to kill her.
I don't see this at all. She was turning her steering wheel hard right when the officer was standing at the front left corner of her vehicle, indicating her intent was to drive around the guy. You can see that in the two or three seconds before the officer's camera jerks.
If this was the only video we have of the incident, you might be forgiven for assuming that she was unsuccessful in avoiding him, but the earlier video caught from a different perspective made it look like the officer hopped out of the way untouched. In any case, even if contact was made, it wasn't severe enough for the officer to drop the phone despite being held in one hand while at the same time drawing and firing his gun multiple times at the driver.
I've seen far worse strikes/near-misses happen when parents teach their teenagers to drive for the first time where everyone walks away unhurt.
( I'm outside the US, I've worked for deacdes in "intelligence" (being accurate about video, signals, resources, data) for well heeled private clients and state, national level governments. )
Wider angle earlier release video that showed the other officer approach the side window, reach in and attempt to grab keys and or unlock and open door (prompting car to reverse, turn wheels, and move forwards) show this officer turning, crouching, drawing, stalking in to aiming at driver all prior to the forward motion.
This released footage does not appear to have that sequence.
A security expert who has analyzed the new video filmed by an ICE officer says it appears to have been edited to remove crucial moments that show when shots were fired at Good.
Thomas Warrick, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council think-tank, said when the 47-second-long video is watched second-by-second, it briefly goes black around the 42-second mark.
"There's no logical reason why somebody holding a cellphone has a black frame at that point," said Warrick, a former deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at the Department of Homeland Security.
He said the phone evidently didn't fall to the ground, because the officer is holding it at the end of the video and pointing it toward Good's car.
"So, clearly, he never dropped the phone. Why is that black frame there? What happened?" Warrick said.
"This is going to fuel the narrative that evidence is being manipulated."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/ice-shooting-minneap...
https://bsky.app/profile/ragnarokx.bsky.social/post/3mbz7pt4...
> I synced up the video from the Johnathan Ross and a bystander to help show what was happening when he fumbled his camera. He was already out of the way at that point and already had his gun drawn. It wasn't him being hit, it was him shooting Renee Good.
kccoder•9h ago
wrs•9h ago
closingreunion•9h ago
amelius•9h ago
Zigurd•9h ago
salawat•9h ago
slg•8h ago
Even if you think he was justified in his use of force, everyone should be able to see that how he used force was at best inappropriate. Not being able to admit that is a sign that you’re letting your bias overrule what you’re seeing.
hypeatei•7h ago
jrs235•5h ago
This is the most critical recent "code" development. In May 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Barnes v. Felix that courts must look at the "totality of circumstances" leading up to a shooting.
The Rule: If an officer recklessly steps in front of a vehicle (creating the danger themselves), a court can now rule that their subsequent use of force was unreasonable because they "precipitated" the threat.
Impact: This case effectively ended the "moment of threat" defense, where officers used to argue, "It doesn't matter how I got in front of the car; I shot because it was about to hit me." Now, the law says: "If you put yourself there unnecessarily, you are liable."
_DeadFred_•5h ago
duxup•4h ago
A lot of these guys behave like they really want someone to provoke them so they can shoot someone ... even when they're not provoked:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ICE_Raids/comments/1q7u4kz/ice_agen...
https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1q7y43s/cbp_poin...
These are the folks this administration want out there, to distract folks, fracture country, all of the above probably.