I think there are two issues coming to ahead there: Two possibly character disturbed lefties who went out of their way to provoke other kinds of possibly character disturbed righties who also did their best to escalate the situation.
In some way you can understand both “sides“ there and that both sides are sort of engaging in dangerous things. And it should also be noted that at least some of the ICE agents might easily become more dangerous agents in the future because power hungry people tend to get attracted to such jobs who want to dictate and control what others do even though it is none of their business.
It doesn’t look all that good for americas future.
From my perspective, the whole Renee Good vs ICE agent scenario boils down to 2 fundamental premises...
She shouldn't have been there and He shouldn't have done that.
1) She shouldn't have been there.
She put herself right in the centre of a potentially dangerous and chaotic situation. We know that she was a trained leftist activist who drove to Minneapolis for the purpose of protesting ICE arrests. She deliberately drove her car into the middle of the road to interfere with law enforcement agents who were in the process of doing their job. This is an illegal activity, and there are consequences for breaking the law. One of the consequences is to be detained by law enforcement and to comply with their verbal commands. She ignored the commands and instead chose to try and escape by driving away, and in doing so (whether purposeful or not) made physical contact with the officer who then responded with lethal force. These are the basic facts as seen in the video.
2) He shouldn't have done that.
He was engaged in the task of arresting and deporting illegal immigrants. Anyone who enters the country "illegally" can be considered a criminal, and thus be subject to arrest by law enforcement. The ICE officer has been given a mandate by the government to do this. Under the law, he has a reasonable expectation to be able to perform his duties without interference by the public. Anyone who, in any way, impedes, obstructs or prevents an officer from exercising his duties, is also breaking the law, and can be arrested for doing so. Upon seeing this woman deliberately obstructing his activities with her car, he gave her a direct verbal order to turn off the ignition and exit the vehicle. She ignored this command and instead tried to drive away, resulting in the officer being struck and him responding with lethal force.
It is my understanding of US law, that a motor vehicle can be considered as a "dangerous weapon" if there exists a threat that it will be used to cause bodily harm. That the vehicle struck him as she tried to flee, whether intentional or not, placed the car into this category. For this reason, his actions to respond with lethal force were probably legally justifiable. But whether they were morally justifiable is another thing altogether.
For anyone with common sense who watched the scene unfold, it seems pretty obvious that the officer's life was not ever really in danger, as he could have easily sidestepped the vehicle, and prevented her escape by less excessive means, ie: using his gun to shoot out the tires, or noting the license plate number to arrest her later. So, the argument that he overreacted to the incident and used excessive force is valid, although I don't think it would stand up in a court of law.
But my main point is that part 2 (He shouldn't have done that) followed as a direct result of part 1 (She shouldn't have been there).
None of this would have happened if the woman had stayed home with her kid, or protested with a sign from the sidelines, or at the very least complied with the officers demand to exit the vehicle. By interfering with the ICE agent's ability to do their job unimpeded and trying to escape instead of following a direct command, she deliberately put herself in harms way.
This is not an attempt to absolve the ICE agents over-reaction to the situation and I'm not saying she deserved to die, or even was "asking for it" in that sense. But that in her ignorance, self-righteousness and delusion as a result of insane leftist programming, it was her own stupid decisions and actions (conscious or not) that put her life at risk. And for that reason I think the greater burden of responsibility of this tragic event falls squarely on her shoulders.
The C's talk about creating a strategic enclosure for a reason. So that one can recognize, anticipate and steer clear of potentially dangerous situations. Stay away from events that are unpredictable, chaotic, explosive, and where emotions are running high. Don't engage in mass protests that are fraught with peril because people are running around like crazy and law enforcement officers are already on edge.
Their recent advice to "keep a low profile" during these uncertain times becomes especially prescient and seems tailored for exactly this type of scenario.
Another version of this idea is - play stupid games, win stupid prizes, or FAFO.
One can't walk into a lions den and then act surprised or complain when they get mauled.
