Almost immediately after the tragic death of Renee Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 8, both sides of the issue lined up to accuse or defend. Those who saw Good as an instigator, an obstructionist for ICE agents, and symbolic of the progressive effort to oppose immigration laws knew she aimed her vehicle at an ICE agent. Leftists, who have established the practice of “sanctuary” cities, areas where illegal immigrants can find protection from the laws they have broken, were just as convinced that the ICE agents deliberately shot Good for no purpose, in effect murdering her. Here are two distinct interpretations of the events from two prominent political figures. The first, from J.D. Vance, Vice-President of the United States, speaking at a press conference following the shooting:
“The simple fact is, what you see is what you get. You have a woman who is trying to obstruct a legitimate law enforcement officer. No one debates that. You have a woman who aims her car at a law enforcement officer and presses on the accelerator. No one debates that. I can believe her death is a tragedy, while it is a tragedy of her own making. A tragedy of the far left that has marshalled a whole movement, a lunatic fringe against our law enforcement officers.”
When asked about Good’s presence at the protest, Vance shot back, “You just asked me a question that presumed that the reason…this woman died is that she was engaged in legitimate protest. She tried to run someone over with her car. The guy defended himself when that happened.” Vance delivered the remarks as part of a lengthy exchange with reporters, in which he also implored them to provide truthful information about the event, rather than interjecting biases from their progressive perspective.
Many spoke from the other side, including both Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, decrying the use of unlawful force while defending Good’s actions. But the words of former presidential candidate and first lady Hillary Clinton probably best show the divide between red and blue America. Clinton condemned the shooting, posting on X, “Last night, at the corner where an ICE agent murdered Renee Good, thousands of Minnesotans gathered in the frigid dark to protest her killing. In the face of this administration’s lawless violence, solidarity is the answer. They want to mold America to their cruelty. We refuse.” The fact that Clinton can safely hide behind protection and security while these ICE officers deal with protests every day only adds to her inciting use of the word “murder.”
BASIC FACTS
Over the past several days, various sources have rolled out videos, analyzed the car, driver, and shooter, held protests, provided justifications, and revealed basic facts. Despite the obvious facts, those who want to turn ICE agents into invaders and law enforcement into a type of fascistic rule insist that Good was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. She was not interested in creating any kind of problem. She was just dropping her kid off at school. She was perplexed. In effect, there is nothing unusual to see in Good’s behaviour, just a trigger-happy ICE thug who overreacted and killed an innocent observer. Hogwash!
Renee Good determined to block the ICE vehicles. Her partner got out of the car to shoot video, taunt the officers and follow them around. At one point, she taunted the officers, asking if they wanted some protestors and encouraging them to act, saying, “Come at me, big boy.” Soon, she urged Good to drive while the ICE officer was in front of the car. This reckless cheering led to Good’s shooting. The ICE officer (recently dragged by a car with an illegal alien trying to escape) had every right to protect himself if he felt his life was in danger. Knowing the facts of the case, it seems unlikely that a jury would see anything other than someone trying to defend himself. How would any of us react with that kind of experience fresh in our minds? Democrats and left-wing protestors are at liberty to express their sympathy towards Good, to whatever extent they desire. The unfortunate consequences provide evidence of the employment of extreme political tactics as compared to the usual methods of protest. When did it become okay to interfere with federally mandated employees carrying out their official duties? Protests have long been a part of the American tradition. Protestors may march, sing, chant, carry signs, sit, stand, or walk. They can’t interfere with law enforcement unless they want to be arrested. Obstructing or getting into confrontations with the police results in arrest. If they decide to aim cars or become violent, then tragedies may ensue.
IMMIGRATION REMAINS A HOT ISSUE
When the Biden Administration decided to create an “open doors” immigration policy, it ensured Trump’s comeback. Americans remember the flow of people over their southern border, the influx of immigrants into communities at unprecedented numbers and the strain on every part of life. They don’t want a return to that. Americans want the administration of the day to handle basic matters such as the proper and legal entry of newcomers. In 2024, they demanded that a new president tackle this matter, straighten it out, enforce the laws on the books, and do so constitutionally and humanely.
Donald Trump applied for and got the job. He created a team, but the approach has left many Americans feeling uneasy. As with many of the initiatives Trump undertakes, he bulldozes when he could cultivate. Apparently, Americans wanted border laws enforced but were not ready to watch people get deported. Voters’ schizophrenia about issues should not surprise. Regardless, the issue remains live. Minnesota has significant problems. The Somali daycare fraud highlighted shortcomings in the Walz administration. Walz and Frey refuse to enforce federal immigration law and want to prevent the federal government from doing so. In fact, they want to remove all federal immigration officers from their jurisdictions. On Jan. 14, Walz delivered a prime-time speech and told either bald-faced lies or has lost touch with reality. As Eliana Johnson, Editor-in-Chief of the Washington Free Beacon, put it, Walz “…lied to the citizens of Minnesota. He said that ICE is, quote, just plain grabbing Minnesotans and shoving them in unmarked vans, kidnapping innocent people with no warning and no due process. He went on to say, let’s be very clear, this long ago stopped being a matter of immigration enforcement.”
Walz, Frey and too many officials in Minnesota see these developments as a political opportunity. In their view, Minneapolis is now the focal point, the place where the conflict with federal officials is most intense. Walz, in his prime-time address compared the increasing tensions in Minneapolis to the Battle of Gettysburg, “Walz invoked the historical significance of the First Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, stating that when things looked ‘bleak’ on July 2nd and 3rd, 1863, the regiment ‘held the line for the nation.’ He suggested that Minneapolis and the state were currently in a similar “moment” of historical importance.”
In their minds, ICE agents, rather than having the right to enforce the law, are legitimate targets of abuse. If the people of Minnesota can obstruct these officials, they should. The public is being urged to make the work of those employed by the federal government more complicated. Basically, Minnesota’s elected government has told its citizens to prevent ICE from making arrests, removing illegal immigrants or carrying out its duties to search and collect people who have no legal standing in America. They would like Trump to remove his army, stop enforcing immigration laws, and vamoose. That would be convenient for Walz and the progressive brigade, but it won’t happen. Trump’s next move could heighten tensions, but backing down is not an option. If someone acts too boldly, they will suffer the political repercussions of their choices.
SOLUTIONS
While this has reduced the problem’s scope, we still have to reach some conclusions based on it. First, an established process exists for these matters. If there are Minnesotans who don’t like ICE carrying out its duties, then bang your drum, hit your bongos, and scream your wishes. If you want the laws to change, use elections and campaigns to get people elected who will support your causes. Don’t interfere with duly appointed federal agents and their mandates. Secondly, locally elected officials should not badger federal workers or encourage citizens to do so. It can lead to situations that spiral out of control. People get hurt, or worse. Finally, state and federal officials should collaborate. Minnesota’s government cannot ignore the national election results because they don’t like Trump and did not vote for him. At the end of Biden’s term, Democrats voted to give ICE more money to enforce immigration laws. They can’t have it both ways. The situation in Minnesota is likely to become more heated if the Walz team proceeds with attempts to capitalize politically by attacking Trump. Democrats had better be careful. Overreach can occur on either side. Voters will decide who has overreached, and the press often has to catch up with the nation’s mood. The Battle for Minneapolis rages.
Dave Redekop is a retired elementary resource teacher who worked part-time at the St. Catharines Courthouse as a Registrar until being appointed Executive Director at Redeemer Bible Church in October 2023. He has worked on political campaigns since high school and attended university in South Carolina for five years, earning a Master’s in American History with a specialization in Civil Rights. Dave loves reading biographies.
