Yeah, I know, we’re all tired of hearing it. But I want to throw out my two cents, as someone who was only recently liberated from the Left.

When I try to evaluate situations that are politicized (and this situation definitely has been), I attempt to re-set the incident in a non-politicized setting and see if I’m still angry/upset/whatever. So let’s look at this entire situation between ICE and Ms. Good from another angle.

Let’s pretend this was not ICE. Let’s pretend this was a random person walking on the roadway (not illegal, but some might consider it stupid). He didn’t have a gun. He didn’t have a method of defending himself. Another person approaches Ms. Good at her car window and orders her out of the vehicle. She doesn’t comply (whether that’s legal when ordered by ICE or not doesn’t matter for this scenario). Instead, she backs up to leave, inadvertently aims her car at the random person walking, and then shifts into drive and hits the gas.

The end result is similar: the person walking or standing is hit. The difference is that, being unarmed, the person who was hit is actually damaged, and possibly killed. How do we know this? Well, cars weigh a lot, and when you gun an engine that way, you move fast (especially when shooting forward off an ice patch as Ms. Good was doing). Even at slow speeds, a car or van can do a ton of damage to a human body, and bumpers are placed right where kneecaps are.

In my pretend scenario, Ms. Good’s intent would only come into play for one reason: to determine the length and breadth of her punishment. The fact that she would be punished (whether it be for manslaughter, murder, or intended murder) does not change. Only the severity of it. There is no excuse on the book that allows someone in a vehicle to hit someone not in a vehicle.

Period.

It’s so easy to armchair quarterback this stuff. We can slow down the videos, watch it frame by frame, pick it apart. We can talk about all the various parts and pieces of what happened between the ICE agent and Ms. Good. It’s easy. Know what’s not easy? The less than two seconds that the ICE agent had to make all the various decisions that would affect the rest of his life. Watch the video at full speed. It’s an entirely different thing.

The question that our ICE agent is going to have to face is, would another officer in the same situation make a similar decision to his, to shoot Ms. Good? And the answer is going to be yes. No matter what Ms. Good’s intent was, the fact was that her car was going straight at him at a high rate of speed, and if he did nothing, he was going to be hurt or possibly killed.

So many people have said, what would have happened if he’d just let her go? He could have just let her go, jumped out of the way and been done with it.

But it isn’t that simple. The ICE agents had made it clear that Ms. Good was being detained. To let her go after saying she was being detained is to belittle their authority. It should be noted that obstructing an ICE officer performing their official duties (obstructing includes physically blocking, as Good was doing, as well as misdirecting and assaulting) is a FELONY. It isn’t a minor crime, it’s a big one. It’s likely Good would have been taken back to wherever, fingerprinted and told to show up on a date to court, and then released. She hadn’t, up until that point, done anything that went over the line that the ICE agents had drawn at that place. By using her vehicle as a weapon (purposefully or not), she upped the ante.

None of that matters, though. Resisting arrest is only a misdemeanor, and up until she hit the gas, that’s what they were dealing with. She would have been detained while they figured out if she was “just resisting” or if she had obstructed, but at the end of the day, she’d have gone home.

Instead, she chose to hit the gas.

All of the blow-by-blow stuff, while fascinating, really doesn’t matter. None of it. She was given an order, she disobeyed, and at the moment she attempted to flee the scene she made herself a felon. By ramming the ICE agent, she made herself a dead felon.

I watched a dozen or more views, including the overhead ones from the drone, and I really don’t think she intended to hit the guy in front of her. I think she was still, in her head, interacting with the guy at her window. When she hit the gas, they all started yelling, she looked forward, and in that split second it was too late to do anything else. She’d already FUBAR’d. Her intent doesn’t matter; only her actions matter at this particular point. Intent only matters at court, when they’re charging you officially.

This whole unfortunate mess was not wrought solely by Ms. Good, however.

She was whipped up into a terrified and angry froth by gaslighting terrorist trainers. “Good, who moved to the city last year, linked up with the anti-ICE activists through her 6-year-old son’s woke charter school, which boasts that it puts “social justice first” and prioritizes “involving kids in political and social activism,” multiple local sources said.” (NY Post)

This death, which was ridiculously pointless, lays at the feet of the loony Left, as some are calling them. Walz is flirting with the idea of declaring actual Civil War. “I’ve issued a warning order to prepare the Minnesota National Guard. We have soldiers in training prepared to be deployed if necessary,” stated Walz. (American Family News) While he’s recently backed down from his original threats, he continues to push back against ICE agents arresting people.

It’s awful. I feel for everyone involved (even the family of Good).

By Allyson

5 thoughts on “From Behind Enemy Lines – ICE Shooting”
  1. “There is no excuse on the book that allows someone in a vehicle to hit someone not in a vehicle.”
    Not quite true. A valid excuse (or “justification” as NH law has it) would be if it was an act of self defense. For example, if you stop at a light, a mob surrounds your car and starts to try to break in, you could reasonably conclude you’re in danger of death or grave injury, and for that reason would be justified to use lethal force in self defense. Driving forward, possibly injuring your attackers, would fit that description.

  2. “The question that our ICE agent is going to have to face is, would another officer in the same situation make a similar decision to his, to shoot Ms. Good?”
    That is the essence of the “test of reasonableness.” Would a person in a similar situation, with similar background act in the same manner? If yes, great, if no, why not? If the “why not” answer makes sufficient sense, it was not a good shoot.
    .
    As you explain, it was a good shoot for a host of reasons.
    .
    I really do not have a lot of sympathy for Good or her family. I will agree, it was a tragic loss of life, but that was a choice Good made when she joined up with ICE Watch, and choose to obstruct their legal operation. That she dropped off her partner to video the confrontation is proof of intent in my book. Had she just obeyed the LEOs orders, she would be alive today. But, she chose confrontation, and lost. Sorry, but I have no sympathy.

    1. Im not a cop. however you attempt to run me over with a vehicle you are going to get multiple 230 grain rounds thru the windshield.
      any situation like this you can’t “what if” or “would another —- do the same thing”.. it happened, from what I have seen IF she had turned the wheel a little more to the right she would have missed the guy. SHE chose to hit him deliberately, SHE found out action has consequences. ANY one else who attempts to stir up people to do violence because of good’s actions should be held accountable for resulting damage. just like lunatics want to lump honest citizens in with “gun violence “. way past time for liberals to be treated just like they treat us. way past

      1. I’ve heard some comments saying that the turning of the wheels means the agent was in the wrong.
        I disagree. When a car is suddenly moving at you, it isn’t reasonable to demand that you pause to ascertain its trajectory and verify that it’s turning away from you.
        “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.” — Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335 (1921)
        “Imminent threat” does not mean “imminent even if you watch the slow motion replay 10 times”. It means from the point of view of the person involved, on the spot, in real time, before the point where the “act” decision needed to be made. The amazing thing is that the agent responded as quickly as he did; a lot of people would have ended up on the pavement before they could respond. But as it was, he had to observe, decide, and act in a fraction of a second.
        In other words, if she had aimed the car so as to miss him by some inches instead of striking him, the outcome might not have been different because that wouldn’t have been an observable factor. And in that hypothetical case, if she had still been shot my view of the justifiable nature (yes, it is) would be unchanged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *