ICE agent fatally shoots protester in Minneapolis: Self-defense or police brutality?

[Cosmos]

Somebody posted something on X which I tend to agree, paraphrasing:

It is interesting that the woman (girlfriend apparently of the killed woman?) never actually appears to have published her recording that she probably did on her phone. The X poster pointed out (justifiably) that it would probably make it even more clear what part she played in the drama:

She seemed to try her best to provoke the ICE agents (and specifically the guy that shot) and generally fueled the situation to escalate as best as she could, both in how the ICE people as well as her girlfriend reacted. If it weren’t for her making the situation even more foolish and dangerous as it already was, the thing might have played out quite a bit differently.

 

[Cosmos]

Looking at it from a broader perspective I think we can safely assume that “the left fighting the right and the other way around“ is probably exactly what “Zionists“ want to see in America specifically (but not only there). One of the poster boys of those forces, namely Ben Shapiro, even went so far in openly saying pretty much that publicly in regards to the Kirk assassination. See the threads about it.

He was very upset and angry that “the right“ and “the left“ are not fighting against each other which is what they would have liked to see after the Kirk assassination. I‘m not kidding, he basically said that. Goes to show just how openly deceitful and contemptuous those forces are becoming against “the unwashed masses“ because they do not even make a secret about it anymore.

 

[luc]

The real topic that is fueling the debate but is not being admitted to is whether or not her political beliefs made him shooting her justified, over and above any alleged impact with her car. What many people supportive of ICE WANT to say but can't (for obvious reasons) is: "Well somebody's gotta start shooting a few of those radical lefties to send a message to the rest!"

That's part of it, but I think the bigger picture as to the "real topic", and the two opposing camps, is something like this (slightly caricatured):

Camp A: "Trump and gang are literally Nazis whose ICE goons go on a racist ethnic cleansing campaign, killing and deporting innocent U.S. citizens (no human is illegal) simply because they are racist. Diversity is good, multiculturalism is good, foreigners are good. We are the good people, we love them all, and we need to "protect the Jews from Hitler". We are the brave Résistance and will go down in history as heroes fighting Hitler. And have you seen the latest video of an ICE raid? See, they are fascists! We need to protect the victims at all cost by blocking it all!"

Camp B: "Mass migration of foreigners/ethnic groups has wrecked our country and made it unrecognizable. The natives are marginalized and soon will be a minority. Losing your homeland is absolute misery, not to mention all the deaths caused by migrant violence, economic destruction due to freeloaders and illegal cheap labour, destruction of the school system, nepotism of ethnic clans entering the workforce etc. The libtards are brainwashed to not see any of this, but this is an existential battle for our people, and remigration must happen if we are to survive. A few scenes of violence or excess? Tough luck. You can't be emotionally manipulated by this into giving up the goal that is far more important than avoiding a few ugly scenes. In fact, you need some of this ugliness to send a message and incentivize them to leave."

Indeed, the legal discussion is beside the point. The protestors would still protest if all of the ICE actions were deemed legal, or every act of violence against migrants or protestors was a clear-cut case of self-defense. And the right-wingers would still demand mass remigration even if these cases of violence were clearly illegal/senseless. Some in both camps would probably readily admit this, but in "mainstream" online discourse few people do, even to themselves, and instead choose to make the facts fit their narrative as to the legality of the circumstances.

 

[Niall]

Interesting, I didn't know that. I had read earlier somewhere that she had driven to Minnesota from a different state. Thanks for the clarification Niall.

This does raise an interesting question though. Why did she feel the need to drive her car to an ICE protest if it was only a few blocks away from her house? This, and the perpendicular position of her car in relation to the street, gives us insight into her motives and suggests an element of premeditation, in that she had planned to bring her car there with the specific intention of blocking ICE vehicles in order to prevent them from doing their job.

In this case, a little fresh air and exercise would have literally saved her life.

Her motive was protest/civil disobedience. This is Minneapolis, a very 'blue' city, thus someone like her literally believes Trump is Hitler and ICE are his henchmen. She believed that by blocking their way and honking her car horn incessantly, she was doing her part to 'save America'. You can't just go 'what would I do if I were in her shoes?' You have to go 'what would I do if I were a blue-haired liberal and ICE came to my neighborhood?'

If anything, the people who 'drove to Minneapolis, spoiling for a fight', were the 2,000 ICE agents sent there by Trump. We can pretend they were 'just doing their job', but as I suggested in an earlier post, the sequence of events leading up to their intervention was political (rather than 'judicially impartial') in nature.

 

[SevenFeathers]

Why did she feel the need to drive her car to an ICE protest if it was only a few blocks away from her house?

The protestors were using their vehicles to block the ICE cops.

 

[Timótheos]

The problem is that US courts have ruled that some aspects of Trump's immigration policy, specifically relating to the actions of ICE, have been ruled unconstitutional, and have been blocked, often on grounds of overreach, lack of due process, or discrimination.

Yes, it is true. Some lower US courts have ruled that certain aspects of Trump's immigration policy are unconstitutional on these grounds and others. To the best of my knowledge, only one of these cases resulted in a decision by the Supreme Court which temporarily blocked the deportation of gang members, citing due process, overreach, and rights violations.

Of the other 10 or so key court rulings were made at the state, federal district or appellate level in the primarily blue states of California, NY, Mass, DC and Illinois, four of which have been paused, stayed or reversed by the Supreme Court.

Is it accurate to assume that until each of these individual cases have gone through the appeals process and brought before the USSC where a final decision is handed down, that ICE's current actions in regards to arresting and deporting illegal immigrants remains "legal" at the federal level?

Another aspect to consider is that much of the US judicial system (especially in democrat states) appears to be corrupt, in that many of the judges in these blue states are DEI hires that were appointed because of their activist leanings and adherence to woke ideology. So it seems likely that some of these law suits were motivated for partisan political reasons, to get at Trump so to speak, rather than a sincere desire to protect criminal gang members or poor oppressed Somalian scammers.

So there is legitimate reason for US citizens so inclined to decide to take a stand against what has been deemed illegal activity by law enforcement. Not saying it's a good idea, just that these people believe, not without reason, that they are standing up FOR the law, not acting against it.

Not entirely sure about this for reasons stated above. If by "taking a stand" you mean the freedom to voice their opinion, or gather in groups to protest in the streets against law enforcement actions that one believes to be unconstitutional, then I would agree. But as soon as "taking a stand" morphs into direct deliberate interference with ICE agents ability to do their job, then their actions become criminal as well, and the possible consequences of such actions (detainment, arrest, fines, imprisonment, and in rare cases death) should taken into account.

Another thing I'm not sure about this - at what point is it reasonable for people to take it upon themselves to enforce the law (if for example the USSC ruled that ICE's actions were unconstitutional and they continued arresting illegals anyway)? Wouldn't that fall under the purview of other law enforcement agencies, like the FBI and whatnot?

In any case, whatever my perspective on it, it's just my opinion, which isn't really worth much, and I don't mind anyway because I'm not at all identified with any particular outcome and an lucky to not have any skin in the game. Even if I did, I'd probably be well advised to withdraw it, if possible. I just find the dynamic interesting from an evolving societal/political/global affairs POV.

100% agree. Not becoming emotionally identified with one side or the other is the probably the sanest and most practical position to take regarding situations like these.

 

[Kansas]

That's part of it, but I think the bigger picture as to the "real topic", and the two opposing camps, is something like this (slightly caricatured):

Camp A: "Trump and gang are literally Nazis whose ICE goons go on a racist ethnic cleansing campaign, killing and deporting innocent U.S. citizens (no human is illegal) simply because they are racist. Diversity is good, multiculturalism is good, foreigners are good. We are the good people, we love them all, and we need to "protect the Jews from Hitler". We are the brave Résistance and will go down in history as heroes fighting Hitler. And have you seen the latest video of an ICE raid? See, they are fascists! We need to protect the victims at all cost by blocking it all!"

Camp B: "Mass migration of foreigners/ethnic groups has wrecked our country and made it unrecognizable. The natives are marginalized and soon will be a minority. Losing your homeland is absolute misery, not to mention all the deaths caused by migrant violence, economic destruction due to freeloaders and illegal cheap labour, destruction of the school system, nepotism of ethnic clans entering the workforce etc. The libtards are brainwashed to not see any of this, but this is an existential battle for our people, and remigration must happen if we are to survive. A few scenes of violence or excess? Tough luck. You can't be emotionally manipulated by this into giving up the goal that is far more important than avoiding a few ugly scenes. In fact, you need some of this ugliness to send a message and incentivize them to leave."

Indeed, the legal discussion is beside the point. The protestors would still protest if all of the ICE actions were deemed legal, or every act of violence against migrants or protestors was a clear-cut case of self-defense. And the right-wingers would still demand mass remigration even if these cases of violence were clearly illegal/senseless. Some in both camps would probably readily admit this, but in "mainstream" online discourse few people do, even to themselves, and instead choose to make the facts fit their narrative as to the legality of the circumstances.

Thank you luc for the Camp A and Camp B break down of the issues with deportation. With earlier administrations the issue with deportations appears to be less emphasized. When I was told Obama had deported more people than Trump I took a look at the numbers, and they were right. Then wondering why this time it has been so crazy, causing protests and active media coverage. I googled a search on reported deaths with the deportations. I posted the search assistant answer with this post. President Trump has changed the guidelines, as we know. The changes in the policy has resulted in violence and substandard care of the people taken into custody, plus what appears to be unconstitutional acts.

This from search assistant:
Undocumented immigrants in the United States have constitutional rights, including the right to due process and equal protection under the law, as outlined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This means they cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair legal proceedings, regardless of their immigration status.

fuchsberg.com clearwaterlawgrouptricities.com

Search Assistant:

During the Trump administration, there were 42 confirmed deaths in ICE detention as of December 2025, while the Obama administration recorded 24 deaths in ICE custody during its tenure. The Trump administration's deportation policy has been described as more aggressive, leading to a higher number of detentions and associated deaths compared to the Obama era.
Cato Institute NBC News

Overview of Deportation-Related Deaths​

The number of deaths associated with deportations during the Obama and Trump administrations reflects differing immigration policies and enforcement practices.

Deaths During the Obama Administration​

• Total Deaths: Approximately 24 immigrants died in ICE custody during Obama's presidency.
• Detention Conditions: Reports indicated that many deaths were linked to inadequate medical care and poor conditions in detention centers.

Deaths During the Trump Administration​

• Total Deaths: By December 2025, 42 confirmed deaths occurred in ICE detention under Trump, with 34 of these deaths happening in detention centers.
• Detention Practices: The Trump administration's policies included aggressive enforcement actions, leading to a significant increase in detentions and deportations, which some argue contributed to the rise in deaths.

Comparison of Policies and Impact​

Administration	Total Deaths in Custody	Notable Factors
Obama	24	Focus on deporting individuals with criminal records; some deaths linked to medical neglect.
Trump	42	Hardline policies; increased raids and detentions; deaths attributed to harsh conditions and lack of medical care.

The differences in the number of deaths reflect the broader immigration enforcement strategies employed by each administration, with Trump's policies being characterized as more aggressive and expansive.
Cato Institute NBC News

ICE government contractors: from search assistant. I am assuming the average protester is not aware that ICE is not the average type of law enforcement. They are well trained soldiers more likely the type to say "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission." Or, "Shoot first and ask questions later."

Overview of ICE Contractors​

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relies on numerous private contractors to support its operations. These contractors provide a wide range of services, from surveillance and tracking to detention and transportation.

Types of Services Provided​

Surveillance and Tracking​

• Skip Tracing Services: Companies are hired to track immigrants using digital tools and physical surveillance.
• Bounty Hunting: Some contractors are involved in bounty hunting programs, earning bonuses for tracking immigrants.

Detention and Transportation​

• Detention Services: Contractors provide armed and unarmed detention officer services to manage detainees.
• Transportation Services: Companies are responsible for securely transporting detainees to various locations.

Notable Contractors and Their Roles​

Contractor Name	Services Provided	Potential Earnings
Capgemini Government Solutions	Intelligence services for ICE	Over $365 million
Bluehawk LLC	Intelligence collection and analysis	Over $200 million
Quantico Tactical Services	Supplies firearms and munitions	Over $19 million
Caci International	Tactical communications and maintenance	Up to $130.6 million
Government Support Services	Staffing for janitorial and security roles	Up to $55 million

Financial Implications​

ICE's contracts with private companies have significantly increased, especially under recent administrations. The agency's budget has expanded, leading to more contracts and higher potential earnings for contractors involved in immigration enforcement activities.
These contractors play a crucial role in supporting ICE's mission, which has become more aggressive in recent years.
Fortune The Intercept

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

The real topic that is fueling the debate but is not being admitted to is whether or not her political beliefs made him shooting her justified, over and above any alleged impact with her car. What many people supportive of ICE WANT to say but can't (for obvious reasons) is: "Well somebody's gotta start shooting a few of those radical lefties to send a message to the rest!" Post that on X and I'd say you'd get a lot of likes and reposts, but you'd also probably get a time out or a ban. Such is the state of the country and the discourse on SM.

And this mirrors what happened with Charlie Kirk (and attempt on Trump). The "right" may hold their tongue a bit, but the leftists were pretty open about being happy that Charlie/Trump were shot for their political beliefs. Both sides have been radicalized in their stances, which includes perceiving the other side as an actual enemy that is destroying their country, impeding their freedoms, and contrary to what they think is true and real and good. Tensions are so high that the only reason we don't have civil war is because no one wants to disturb their own peace or risk their own skin. So when there is a tragic shooting, it works almost like a release valve - the other side basically feels "finally one of them got what they deserved, hope someone does more of that sort of thing", and there's a bit of a "justice is finally being done" feeling followed by waiting to see if this scares the other side into backing down enough. Yes there's an explosive conversation, which makes it seem like tensions are spiking from the event, but I really think a lot of people actually calm down when their side "gets a win" for a while. Eventually tensions start rising again, and another tragic death releases the pressure on the "victor" side, but maybe it does raise the tension on the "loser" side.

In fact if I was conspiratorial, one could consider the possibility that the deep state takes turns giving different sides "wins" (I don't think this specific situation was necessarily that tho, unless of course beaming/mind control was involved, then who knows). If only one side is always on the receiving end, they may eventually snap. I wonder if what the C's said about there being a season for sacrifice at all relates to that kind of thing.

I got the same sense when that big pharma CEO was assassinated. Tons of people were/are supporting Luigi (regardless of his actual guilt here) - they felt like the evil big pharma had it coming, and hope that more "of that sort of thing" starts happening to put some fear in those companies/CEO's.

And I'm making no arguments about which side is actually closer to the truth in any of this - only how I see the dynamics play out in general. I mean I'm also guilty of this - when a Soros, a Clinton, or a Rothchild for example happen to drop dead, part of me is a little bit relieved that the world has one less 4D STS channel. But because many leftists perceived Charlie/Trump/Candace as the equivalent of those, they experience the same feelings probably - a certain relief that one of the "evil people" is now gone.

And as for the "pressure release" analogy - when the United Healthcare CEO was assassinated, a lot of people were also talking about how hopefully the other CEO's take notice, maybe this will make them think twice before defrauding people. So there's a sort of "ok let's wait and see if this changes things for the better" mentality. Over time, when nothing changes, the pressure builds back up, rinse and repeat.

But as for this specific situation I tend to agree - tensions and emotions were high, everyone involved did things they probably wouldn't have done if they didn't act impulsively in a very volatile situation. She probably didn't try to hit/kill him with the car - she looked like she was trying to turn and get away (dumb idea, but it is what it is), but he was just too much in the way and the car couldn't turn hard enough to miss him. He shouldn't have been standing in front of a car of a volatile individual at the wheel - for his own safety. He reacted very dramatically - not sure if he was just very antagonized against her in general given the situation and the overall political situation at large. Again, maybe it was a case of "I hate these annoying libtards, just give me a reason to do something dramatic" and he saw his chance. Or maybe he really thought she hit him intentionally. I can't know - but when tensions (political and immediate) are high, emotions are running wild, even highly trained humans are ultimately just humans, and bad decisions will be made. Multiple difference choices on both sides could've avoided this outcome. Mind-control beaming notwithstanding.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Her motive was protest/civil disobedience. This is Minneapolis, a very 'blue' city, thus someone like her literally believes Trump is Hitler and ICE are his henchmen. She believed that by blocking their way and honking her car horn incessantly, she was doing her part to 'save America'. You can't just go 'what would I do if I were in her shoes?' You have to go 'what would I do if I were a blue-haired liberal and ICE came to my neighborhood?'

If anything, the people who 'drove to Minneapolis, spoiling for a fight', were the 2,000 ICE agents sent there by Trump. We can pretend they were 'just doing their job', but as I suggested in an earlier post, the sequence of events leading up to their intervention was political (rather than 'judicially impartial') in nature.

Oh yeah those kinds of games are being played all the time. Remember how a bunch of migrants were shipped and dropped off on Martha's Vineyard? Both sides like to antagonize the other side, or just make a political statement. It can always be justified that something is technically legal and the henchmen involved are just doing their jobs, but the "why now, why here, why exactly like this" etc questions often point to "someone enjoys kicking the hornet's nest" kind of mentality. Deciding which problem to address, how/when to address it, always under the cover of "this is my job" is incredibly variable and selective. Sorta like ignoring Sudan or other massacres but being very concerned about Iran shooting protesters. Or ignoring North Korea or Israeli nukes, but again, concerned elsewhere. In fact, I'm convinced no one ever just "does their job" indiscriminately, especially at those levels!

 

[Joe]

That's part of it, but I think the bigger picture as to the "real topic", and the two opposing camps, is something like this (slightly caricatured):

Yeah, that's the detailed explanation of what I was saying.

 

[JEEP]

Excellent discussion and points being made.

What many people supportive of ICE WANT to say but can't (for obvious reasons) is: "Well somebody's gotta start shooting a few of those radical lefties to send a message to the rest!" Post that on X and I'd say you'd get a lot of likes and reposts, but you'd also probably get a time out or a ban. Such is the state of the country and the discourse on SM.

No doubt a significant swath of MAGA types feel this way. And, I believe it's becoming increasingly hard for other less hard core MAGA supporters - who I also believe are becoming more and more disenchanted with Trump with each passing day to the point of a Marjorie Taylor Greene type schism - to keep from falling into that type of hateful thought and actions. It's not who they basically are and it goes against their personal/religious beliefs. But, they can clearly see the operational agenda being employed against them, the widespread corruption across numerous governmental channels, and it's why they came out in droves to vote Trump into office to stem what also clearly is the intent to destroy our country and them personally.

I think what we're trying to discern is whether the ICE agent was justified to shoot her or not. Whether it was self defense or not.

In looking at this video, it appears two more ICE agents had just pulled up and exited their truck to deal with Good and her blocking SUV. I think that particular action triggered a panic reaction causing her to start moving her SUV to get the hell out of there - egged on by her highly confrontational wife yelling "drive, baby, drive!" Alas, in doing so, her SUV became directly pointed at the agent that had been mostly off to the side as she hit the gas. The agent instinctively pulled his gun upon hearing the acceleration with the SUV now directly facing him and then shot as the vehicle hit his body and then shouting, "f****** bitch," as he no doubt believed she intended to run him down. Two additional shots seems to correspond to how agents are trained to react when they do start shooting (always 3 shots). I do think the officer felt he was acting in self defense particularly as this all happened in split seconds. Would shooting her stop the car from running him over had the wheel not continued to be turned - unlikely. But neither would shooting a tire had he even been able to pull that off. I believe to his mind, it was a life or death moment and he reacted accordingly as perhaps any ICE or police officer would. And as previously posted, this would seem to be another Awful but Lawful incidence and will likely be deemed exactly that. Plus this is on the officer's side. Can we also recognize that the two "ladies" behavior contributed to the tragic death of someone who thought messing with armed enforcers was, at first, a fun and rightful thing to do. Poking the bear turned deadly. Were the responding officers deaf and dumb to this provocation - probably not, but we'd like to think they had been trained to act professionally in dealing with protesters and not use deadly force if it could be avoided. Has IDF training obliterated that concept? Had Ross undergone IDF training? No doubt ICE officers as actual human beings are not totally able to mentally block out their feelings concerning the politically motivated attacks of the protesters on their mandate to do their duties. How could they not have built up animosity when you really look at all they have been subjected to. And, we know this is all an outcome being perpetrated by the dark forces that have been openly at work for several years now.

I've already expressed my thoughts in previous posts about putting a spotlight on ICE abuses and having a reasonable and honest public conversation about this entire issue. We do need to push back on these abuses, particularly the IDF training of our agents, while also not forgetting the Leftist/DS/Globalist agenda behind it all. How best to do this though? Also, let's not forget that 911 birthed the DHS (and the preplanned Patriot Act) and persons at that time expressed the danger of a homeland military force being created. We've been deliberately put between a rock and a hard place in which our civil liberties are being eviscerated no matter which side is taken. And that's why taking sides is the wrecking ball of unity - and unity is the only real threat to the PTB. Can that even possibly be achieved at this point? I rather think the Cs have indicated a big NO and that earth changes are what's really going to throw gigantic wrenches into the whole diabolical process. Meanwhile, do we just sit back or actively work for truthful exposure to at least help keep susceptible minds from completely falling into the psyop traps playing out?

 

[SummerLite]

Meanwhile, do we just sit back or actively work for truthful exposure to at least help keep susceptible minds from completely falling into the psyop traps playing out?

Exposing who has set up these "protests" is helpful I think and may reach some who are on the fence about getting involved. This is being done in the government as well as on social media. But, it won't help the many true believers as at some point all the proof in the world can't change their minds. Obviously, the blame for all this lies predominately with the Democrat mayors and governors of these blue states and cities, behind them are the globalists. It is a uniparty though so republicans are involved as well.

I'm not one to get down on law enforcement because I know the importance of their work. Look what happens without them. The majority aren't thugs but there will always be the few that are and they get the spotlight. Any escalation of force is created by the obstructionists and illegals themselves. To resist arrest is to escalate matters which starts at a low level but can increase with continued resistance. It will all be recorded to turn people against ICE but they aren't the instigators.

More training and resources would be helpful as they haven't faced anything of this magnitude before.

What many people supportive of ICE WANT to say but can't (for obvious reasons) is: "Well somebody's gotta start shooting a few of those radical lefties to send a message to the rest!" Post that on X and I'd say you'd get a lot of likes and reposts, but you'd also probably get a time out or a ban. Such is the state of the country and the discourse on SM.

Very, very few would feel this way. Over all the Americans are good people and DO NOT support violence. It's the leftists calling for shooting so far. Its all very stupid.

I've imagined the shooters mental state and I think he may have set up Good. There are reports now that he had internal injuries bu I haven't seen more on that.

and unity is the only real threat to the PTB. Can that even possibly be achieved at this point?

Hmmm, I don't know that it can be. I try in my small way but I'm only one person,

 

[Cosmos]

I think in the following short segment, Candace Owens summarizes at least partly a number of thoughts and concerns that Joe and others, including me, are trying to express and get across in what they are saying, seeing and thinking about regarding that incident, and I also think it adds another critical and potentially crucial thing to the discussion here:

I mean, is it really that far-fetched to at least think at this point, given that it seems to have become so obvious how Trump shills for "Israel" and even specifically furthering/encouraging the system already to punish "anti Zionist" people, thoughts, and behaviors within America, that law enforcement types that have been probably at least partly specifically trained by "Israelis/CIA, etc,"could end up not only "getting illegals" and deporting them (whatever that means)? If not now, then perhaps in the future such law enforcement people could deport "everyone that could be considered a threat," aka. anyone telling, speaking, or even thinking the truth?

That could even happen in ways that the law enforcers themselves wouldn't necessarily know what they are really (also?) engaging in? I mean, they get orders "from above" to "deport" this or that "illegal alien" or "criminal", but do they themselves even know, or can they even check or question the "goodness", "truth" or reliability of every order or command they follow? Who actually decides who is illegal and/or an illegal criminal, and how trustworthy do you think those people are in their judgment? I'm sorry that I can't put much faith in those people giving the orders to law enforcement, most especially in a country like the US, that is so obviously ruled by evil in so many corners. And yes, obviously, IMO (as Candace seems to suggest in a way as well), especially now, you would be a fool to not even consider or question if the fact that Trump is willing to even get military (besides regular law enforcement) out on the streets to "perform justice" is or could become all that just in the future, at the very least, in some cases.

 

[nortkee]

Thank you luc for the Camp A and Camp B break down of the issues with deportation. With earlier administrations the issue with deportations appears to be less emphasized. When I was told Obama had deported more people than Trump I took a look at the numbers, and they were right. Then wondering why this time it has been so crazy, causing protests and active media coverage. I googled a search on reported deaths with the deportations. I posted the search assistant answer with this post. President Trump has changed the guidelines, as we know. The changes in the policy has resulted in violence and substandard care of the people taken into custody, plus what appears to be unconstitutional acts.

This from search assistant:
Undocumented immigrants in the United States have constitutional rights, including the right to due process and equal protection under the law, as outlined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This means they cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without fair legal proceedings, regardless of their immigration status.

fuchsberg.com clearwaterlawgrouptricities.com

Search Assistant:

During the Trump administration, there were 42 confirmed deaths in ICE detention as of December 2025, while the Obama administration recorded 24 deaths in ICE custody during its tenure. The Trump administration's deportation policy has been described as more aggressive, leading to a higher number of detentions and associated deaths compared to the Obama era.
Cato Institute NBC News

Overview of Deportation-Related Deaths​

The number of deaths associated with deportations during the Obama and Trump administrations reflects differing immigration policies and enforcement practices.

Deaths During the Obama Administration​

• Total Deaths: Approximately 24 immigrants died in ICE custody during Obama's presidency.
• Detention Conditions: Reports indicated that many deaths were linked to inadequate medical care and poor conditions in detention centers.

Deaths During the Trump Administration​

• Total Deaths: By December 2025, 42 confirmed deaths occurred in ICE detention under Trump, with 34 of these deaths happening in detention centers.
• Detention Practices: The Trump administration's policies included aggressive enforcement actions, leading to a significant increase in detentions and deportations, which some argue contributed to the rise in deaths.

Comparison of Policies and Impact​

Administration	Total Deaths in Custody	Notable Factors
Obama	24	Focus on deporting individuals with criminal records; some deaths linked to medical neglect.
Trump	42	Hardline policies; increased raids and detentions; deaths attributed to harsh conditions and lack of medical care.

The differences in the number of deaths reflect the broader immigration enforcement strategies employed by each administration, with Trump's policies being characterized as more aggressive and expansive.
Cato Institute NBC News

ICE government contractors: from search assistant. I am assuming the average protester is not aware that ICE is not the average type of law enforcement. They are well trained soldiers more likely the type to say "It's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission." Or, "Shoot first and ask questions later."

Overview of ICE Contractors​

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) relies on numerous private contractors to support its operations. These contractors provide a wide range of services, from surveillance and tracking to detention and transportation.

Types of Services Provided​

Surveillance and Tracking​

• Skip Tracing Services: Companies are hired to track immigrants using digital tools and physical surveillance.
• Bounty Hunting: Some contractors are involved in bounty hunting programs, earning bonuses for tracking immigrants.

Detention and Transportation​

• Detention Services: Contractors provide armed and unarmed detention officer services to manage detainees.
• Transportation Services: Companies are responsible for securely transporting detainees to various locations.

Notable Contractors and Their Roles​

Contractor Name	Services Provided	Potential Earnings
Capgemini Government Solutions	Intelligence services for ICE	Over $365 million
Bluehawk LLC	Intelligence collection and analysis	Over $200 million
Quantico Tactical Services	Supplies firearms and munitions	Over $19 million
Caci International	Tactical communications and maintenance	Up to $130.6 million
Government Support Services	Staffing for janitorial and security roles	Up to $55 million

Financial Implications​

ICE's contracts with private companies have significantly increased, especially under recent administrations. The agency's budget has expanded, leading to more contracts and higher potential earnings for contractors involved in immigration enforcement activities.
These contractors play a crucial role in supporting ICE's mission, which has become more aggressive in recent years.
Fortune The Intercept

I think it's important to note that there is a lot of nuance to the deportation process in the U.S. While it's true that more deportations occurred under Obama than have under Trump to date, "deportation" is a general term that encompasses several different methods of enforcement. Here's a breakdown of terms according to this 2017 article from The Migration Policy Institute (a source I haven't vetted but the information contained within seems fairly non-partisan):

Enforcement Terms
Apprehension: An action by immigration enforcement officers to take physical custody of a noncitizen.
Deportation: A general, nontechnical term describing the movement of a noncitizen out of the United States through either a formal removal or a return.
Removal: The compulsory movement of a noncitizen out of the United States based on a formal order of removal.
Return: The movement of a noncitizen out of the United States based on permission to withdraw their application for admission at the border or an order of voluntary departure.

Not all deportations involve being detained in detention centers, and from what I can glean, it sounds like under Trump, there has been a significant increase in the number of actual detainees on average. According to Grok, under Obama, the ADP (average daily population) of U.S. immigration detention centers peaked at around 38k-40k in fiscal year 2011-2012, then averaged out around 30k-35k. In Trump's first term, ADP peaked in FY 2019 at around 50.5k and averaged from 38;-50k (with a sharp drop during Covid to 14k-20k by the end of his term). In the current term, unsurprisingly, there has been a sharp increase from around 39k-40k in early 2025 to 60k-68k at present.

With this added context, it seems logical that there would be more detention center deaths under Trump on average. Honestly, I'm surprised the number isn't much higher than 42 considering the pressure cooker that we find ourselves in!

By the way, I am by no means a numbers person, so please take this salt shaker to dispense grains as you see fit.

 

[lilies]

You can't just go 'what would I do if I were in her shoes?' You have to go 'what would I do if I were a blue-haired liberal and ICE came to my neighborhood?'

Exactly. Our human rights have disappeared down the toilet during the 2020-2023 scam, the Saint Fauci & Bill Gates plan of force-inoculation by bioweapon, which helped population reduction to reach 1 billion. Supported by the never-marry InCels Pandemic, which means no kids, stop reproducing and die out obediently! Assisted by the decades long poisoning of the population by the Continuity of Government Cult.

I think, this reckless driving and shooting is just the chaotic and infuriating result of it all.

C's told us "Programming is complete": Sessions 11 August 2018 and Session 9 August 1997. Renee Good got probably more unhinged after her husband died in 2023.

She is survived by her wife Becca and three children..
What the heck? How can a woman have a wife?? How damaging is that force-propagated Western social insanity to the kids?? Where is / will the father-example be in that family? It will potentially psychologically damage the kids. Their father died in 2023.. source:

The boy has already lost his father, Becca noted. The Minnesota Star Tribune reported that Renee was previously married to Timmy Ray Macklin Jr., the father of Renee's youngest son, who died at age 36 in 2023.
Renee was also a mother to two older children, a daughter and a son from her first marriage, who are 12 and 15 years old, according to The Associated Press.

This is a twisted social hell typical of The West - resulting in massive psychological damage to the kids and now their Mom is dead - I can't even imagine how that wreaked havoc with the minds of the three children.. And now there is a woman - the widowed wife of the late wife - who the kids now can call "Mom". How insane is that?!

To me this near ramming and shooting reeks of a well designed hyperdimensional setup manipulation of traffic on the streets of the Wild-Wild West in order to make the kids lives as miserable as possible. Well done, Orion STS you succeeded here to create divide and conquer with maximum pain and make humans react with more gnashing of teeth!