Woman shot and killed by ICE officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Disappointed to again see excuses for the shameful and still ongoing genocide in Gaza.

Iranians being killed due to the terrible repressive regime which is undemocratic in the first place
*Palestinians were killed as a result of their own government being murderous terrorists which a great many of them supported and still support and hamas’s actions in Israel.
But you already know that*

I do know that Iranians are being killed by their own repressive government. But what happened to the garbage idea spouted on here by Trump apologists to just ‘do as you are told by your governments law enforcers?

There is no excuse whatsoever for committing genocide on innocent Palestinians because their government are ‘murderous terrorist’. Absolutely appalling to justify this and assume all Palestinians support terrorism. No wonder so many Americans think a woman getting shot to death by ICE for protesting is justifiable and ‘her own fault’. Seriously - get your morality clock reset!

DaisyAnneReturns

Replying to Starfire57Tue 13-Jan-26 20:15:13

I don’t think people are denying that border enforcement is a federal responsibility. I think they’re questioning whether specific actions cross legal or constitutional lines. In most democracies, including the US, elections don’t settle that question by themselves.

Many Trump-era immigration actions were legally challenged, and some were: blocked by courts, modified after adverse rulings or upheld only in part.

I do believe they have authority, as the federal overrules the state. Also, when they arrest these people, they do go before a judge. In other words, they have their day in court before being deported, if that's what the verdict is.

The constitution provides that right to due process. And they do get it. But that doesn't mean they are not deported, if found guilty of breaking the law to get here, then they are.

On our local news, they gave example of some of the latest people they have captured. A couple child rapists with several counts and a guy with 3 counts of homicide. They are not deporting your elderly abuela.

All those arrested get a court hearing and their due process so there really isn't anything in the constitution that says they get off scott free after their due process, just that they get it.

MayBee70

“I think Trump jumped to the conclusion she was trying to run him over, as many people did, but, in the end this really does look like both people made the wrong move, period”.
The POTUS should not make statements without knowing and understanding the full facts. But then that’s Trump…doesn’t know how to engage his brain before opening his mouth.

I actually agree with you on this one.

Oreo

LemonJam

Starfire 20.15- I disagree with your analysis 100%.

We are all able to have our own opinions on here, how marvellous is that.

I don’t object to opinions, but I do object to them being dressed up as facts. If something is claimed to be “literally legal” or “how the system works”, it needs proper support; otherwise it’s just assertion.

Oreo 22.50 - We are in agreement with that.

LemonJam

Starfire 20.15- I disagree with your analysis 100%.

We are all able to have our own opinions on here, how marvellous is that.

StoneofDestiny

So - all you Trump apologists who think the woman should just obey the ‘law enforcers’ or expect to be shot and killed - here we have Trump saying directly to the protesters in Iran ”keep protesting “

So - one rule for US inhabitants and another for Iranians?

In addition - Trump ready to wade in to defend Iranians being slaughtered, but not Palestinians who were being slaughtered? Wonder why?

Sooner Trump goes, the better for the whole world (that he thinks he owns!). The sooner we in Europe tell him to do his worst with his sanctions and we in Europe stick together and defend Denmark/Greenland and support Ukraine the better!

Iranians being killed due to the terrible repressive regime which is undemocratic in the first place.
Palestinians were killed as a result of their own government being murderous terrorists which a great many of them supported and still support and hamas’s actions in Israel.
But you already know that.
Europe won’t tell him to ‘do his worst’ with sanctions, are you joking?
We and the US and Europe are already supporting Ukraine.
As for Greenland, I think in the end that Denmark will take the money for it.

Starfire 20.15- I disagree with your analysis 100%.

Starfire57

Ok, as I read some of these comments, I get it that this is a very sore subject for you in the UK.

I get it.

Another thing, though, I think I'm seeing now is the consistent use of the words fascism and illegal where Trump is concerned is making me realize nobody is understanding our system.

The federal branch and the president himself is employed to protect from foreign invaders; the federal government is in fact supposed to be in charge of all immigration, legal and illegal.

They are not only within their powers to do what they are doing, but it's literally their job. There has been outcry for a very long time now in the US that our government was not doing it's job when it came to the border. And seems this is a main reason Trump was elected. To do the job.

It's literally not illegal but their actual job and it's not fascism when this is what the voters voted for. It's democracy.

Now I get it, these incidents are disturbing. But we are not just shooting protesters for the sake of their protests, unlike countries like Iran, or any communist countries who will.

We have that right to protest as per our laws.

However, we do not have the right to inflict on others, block traffic, attack counter protesters, riot, loot, etc.

We don't have the right to attack law enforcement nor the right to impede or obstruct them in their duties.

Hopefully this clears up the misconceptions that all of this is illegal and fascist.

I mean, it's more of a tragedy; the officer may have misread the intentions of the woman, nevertheless, he thought he was defending himself......think about it, why would he curse at her if he thought she simply made a mistake, with no ill intentions?

He thought she did it on purpose. Looking at the videos, I really don't think she meant to and was in process of trying to turn the wheel and avoid him.

I think Trump jumped to the conclusion she was trying to run him over, as many people did, but, in the end this really does look like both people made the wrong move, period. It was an unfortunate accident and it just shows that cooperation is the smartest move in any of these situations.

I agree with you 100%.
A good analysis of the situation.

Elegran 14.46: "An officer who has been injured by being in front of a car that ran him down should have learnt that it is not a good idea to stand in front of another car - even if it is being driven by a woman who showed no sign of getting physical.

If the man was so traumatised by his previous injury that he lost his temper with the (peaceful) driver, what was he doing back on duty and likely to meet members of the public who disapproved of what he was doing?

In fact, the earliest videos show him, before he fired, standing with his feet clearly well away from the front left wheel, which we then saw turning to the RIGHT, away from him, as she started turning to escape to her right. Strangely, that video subsequently appeared with that part removed, and the action starting as the agent fired into the open window.

He seemd to move away from the death scene afterwards without any difficulty (and though his fellow agents looked horrified at what happened, they didn't come to his aid as though he was injured, in fact they moved away from him as though disassociating themselves).

During his training, he would have been told NOT to impede the car that a suspect was fleeing in by putting his body in the way - let them go. He would also hear that firing into an open car was not allowed, and that he was only employed to deal with immigrants, not as a general law enforcement officer, so he cannot claim that the shooting was part of his job".

Starfire 20.15: "Ok, as I read some of these comments, I get it that this is a very sore subject for you in the UK. I get it.

Another thing, though, I think I'm seeing now is the consistent use of the words fascism and illegal where Trump is concerned is making me realize nobody is understanding our system"

Starfire- Don't worry about us in the UK. It's a very sore subject in for many, many of your US compatriots who live in and understand your systems and are highly concerned. It is more the case we are worried for you and your compatriots for the unrest going on in your country.

We are reading of the very many US citizens are unhappy with Trump, his mobilisation of ICE in its current form, his authoritarian ways and the way he disregards domestic and international rules of law. Minnesota is suing the Trump administration over the surge of federal agents.

We are reading that the Trump administration's rapid and aggressive response to Renee Good's fatal shooting has prompted concern even among Trump's own allies as well as former and current ICE officials.

We are reading about US public confidence concerns regarding the ongoing investigation and the credibility gap between the public and ICE patrolling dozens of US cities. We are reading about widespread US condemnation and a growing number of confrontations between protesters and immigration officials who are being deployed for crowd control and other tasks immigration agencies historically don't perform and do not have jurisdiction. We are reading even that Tucker Carlson is lambasting his fellow members of the right over their response to this ICE agent fatally shooting Renee Good, accusing them of "trying to score political points" and failing to see Renee Good's death "through a human lens". Carlson said "violence around the world is desensitising Americans to violence at home' pointing to the recent US incursion in Venezuela and American support for Israel's brutal war in Gaza. That's Tucker Carlson speaking these words for goodness sake.

You are entitled to your views, not shared by very many of your compatriots. You are trying to tell us in the UK we have "misconceptions" about this fatal shooting and Trump's actions and that in the UK "nobody understands our systems". However we are reading about your systems, we do understand what we are reading and we do understand what we are seeing.

So - all you Trump apologists who think the woman should just obey the ‘law enforcers’ or expect to be shot and killed - here we have Trump saying directly to the protesters in Iran ”keep protesting “

So - one rule for US inhabitants and another for Iranians?

In addition - Trump ready to wade in to defend Iranians being slaughtered, but not Palestinians who were being slaughtered? Wonder why?

Sooner Trump goes, the better for the whole world (that he thinks he owns!). The sooner we in Europe tell him to do his worst with his sanctions and we in Europe stick together and defend Denmark/Greenland and support Ukraine the better!

Replying to Starfire57Tue 13-Jan-26 20:15:13

I don’t think people are denying that border enforcement is a federal responsibility. I think they’re questioning whether specific actions cross legal or constitutional lines. In most democracies, including the US, elections don’t settle that question by themselves.

Many Trump-era immigration actions were legally challenged, and some were: blocked by courts, modified after adverse rulings or upheld only in part.

“I think Trump jumped to the conclusion she was trying to run him over, as many people did, but, in the end this really does look like both people made the wrong move, period”.
The POTUS should not make statements without knowing and understanding the full facts. But then that’s Trump…doesn’t know how to engage his brain before opening his mouth.

“I mean, it's more of a tragedy; the officer may have misread the intentions of the woman, nevertheless, he thought he was defending himself......think about it, why would he curse at her if he thought she simply made a mistake, with no ill intentions?”
He cursed at her because he was out of control himself and acting totally unprofessionaly.

Ok, as I read some of these comments, I get it that this is a very sore subject for you in the UK.

I get it.

Another thing, though, I think I'm seeing now is the consistent use of the words fascism and illegal where Trump is concerned is making me realize nobody is understanding our system.

The federal branch and the president himself is employed to protect from foreign invaders; the federal government is in fact supposed to be in charge of all immigration, legal and illegal.

They are not only within their powers to do what they are doing, but it's literally their job. There has been outcry for a very long time now in the US that our government was not doing it's job when it came to the border. And seems this is a main reason Trump was elected. To do the job.

It's literally not illegal but their actual job and it's not fascism when this is what the voters voted for. It's democracy.

Now I get it, these incidents are disturbing. But we are not just shooting protesters for the sake of their protests, unlike countries like Iran, or any communist countries who will.

We have that right to protest as per our laws.

However, we do not have the right to inflict on others, block traffic, attack counter protesters, riot, loot, etc.

We don't have the right to attack law enforcement nor the right to impede or obstruct them in their duties.

Hopefully this clears up the misconceptions that all of this is illegal and fascist.

I mean, it's more of a tragedy; the officer may have misread the intentions of the woman, nevertheless, he thought he was defending himself......think about it, why would he curse at her if he thought she simply made a mistake, with no ill intentions?

He thought she did it on purpose. Looking at the videos, I really don't think she meant to and was in process of trying to turn the wheel and avoid him.

I think Trump jumped to the conclusion she was trying to run him over, as many people did, but, in the end this really does look like both people made the wrong move, period. It was an unfortunate accident and it just shows that cooperation is the smartest move in any of these situations.

Galaxy

Crikey I must be at the pinnacle of expertise then. British with a German father.

😀

Crikey I must be at the pinnacle of expertise then. British with a German father.

LemonJam

DAR 13.31 👍 👍

When I later asked my father how Hitler had been allowed to take power, the answer he heard most often from Germans he knew was, “We didn’t know.” Not because they were stupid or evil, but because they had been told, reassured, and gradually conditioned to trust their leaders and distrust everyone else.

Also can I add that, despite not knowing about many horrors the Nazis were perpetrating, many Germans did not agree with Hitler anyway but were too scared to speak out or even express an opinion to a friend or neighbour for fear of being reported.

I do know British troops who met and married German women after the war and their families welcomed the British sons-in-law.

Elegran 14.46. I entirely agree. The enquiry has been limited and local authorities shut out. This raises concerns about transparency and cover up...

Elegran

An officer who has been injured by being in front of a car that ran him down should have learnt that it is not a good idea to stand in front of another car - even if it is being driven by a woman who showed no sign of getting physical.

If the man was so traumatised by his previous injury that he lost his temper with the (peaceful) driver, what was he doing back on duty and likely to meet members of the public who disapproved of what he was doing?

In fact, the earliest videos show him, before he fired, standing with his feet clearly well away from the front left wheel, which we then saw turning to the RIGHT, away from him, as she started turning to escape to her right. Strangely, that video subsequently appeared with that part removed, and the action starting as the agent fired into the open window.

He seemd to move away from the death scene afterwards without any difficulty (and though his fellow agents looked horrified at what happened, they didn't come to his aid as though he was injured, in fact they moved away from him as though disassociating themselves).

During his training, he would have been told NOT to impede the car that a suspect was fleeing in by putting his body in the way - let them go. He would also hear that firing into an open car was not allowed, and that he was only employed to deal with immigrants, not as a general law enforcement officer, so he cannot claim that the shooting was part of his job.

In my opinion this is completely accurate.

I’ll be interested too with the outcome and who exactly is involved in any enquiry

Oreo

That’s a giant leap of your imagination Cossy

Soz, not quite sure what this means? Which one of my comments and why?

An officer who has been injured by being in front of a car that ran him down should have learnt that it is not a good idea to stand in front of another car - even if it is being driven by a woman who showed no sign of getting physical.

If the man was so traumatised by his previous injury that he lost his temper with the (peaceful) driver, what was he doing back on duty and likely to meet members of the public who disapproved of what he was doing?

In fact, the earliest videos show him, before he fired, standing with his feet clearly well away from the front left wheel, which we then saw turning to the RIGHT, away from him, as she started turning to escape to her right. Strangely, that video subsequently appeared with that part removed, and the action starting as the agent fired into the open window.

He seemd to move away from the death scene afterwards without any difficulty (and though his fellow agents looked horrified at what happened, they didn't come to his aid as though he was injured, in fact they moved away from him as though disassociating themselves).

During his training, he would have been told NOT to impede the car that a suspect was fleeing in by putting his body in the way - let them go. He would also hear that firing into an open car was not allowed, and that he was only employed to deal with immigrants, not as a general law enforcement officer, so he cannot claim that the shooting was part of his job.

DAR 13.31 👍 👍

Elegran 10.34 "If our governments encourage the violence by failing to check illegally aggressive methods by the organisations which carry out their wishes, they do not deserve our support or votes". 👍

Starfire 10.49 "Indeed, If they are in fact illegally aggressive.
But nobody is going to expect an officer to sit and be attacked.....But using your body or car to impede them, or attack them, well then you take your chances."

Many have formed a view from the videos- the formal investigation is yet to establish whether the ICE officer was "attacked" and whether or not his use of force was justifiable and reasonable.

I am in agreement with you both that if this ICE officer ( carrying out the wishes of Trump) was not attacked and his use of force was not justifiable or reasonable in all the circumstances, Trump does not deserve the publics' support or votes.