The Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of law enforcement has been making headlines for some time now, and this past week it briefly took center stage in our vicious news cycle. In general, ICE has been aggressively removing illegal immigrants from the United States. Some have taken issue with both their methods and the ideology behind them. This opposition has led to protests ranging from staged marches and interference with legal actions to physical altercations with ICE agents.
This past week, those tensions escalated into a fatal shooting on a residential Minnesota street. A female protester and her wife blocked a public roadway and refused to follow commands from a law enforcement officer. At some point, the driver of an SUV decided to drive toward law enforcement after being verbally instructed multiple times to exit the vehicle. The officer then fired four shots, striking her upper body and killing her.
The facts are not movable or shifting. People can disagree on why federal officers were on the ground in the first place. They can debate whether the officer could have de-escalated the situation. Folks can staunchly oppose government policies that allow illegal immigrants to be detained. What is not open for debate is the law as it currently stands: anyone who enters the United States illegally, or resides here beyond a permitted time, is, by definition, a criminal. That same rule of law allows ICE to legally detain or capture such individuals. They are not U.S. citizens and do not fall under the same set of legal entitlements as citizens do.
We all have the right to protest and to oppose those enforcing the law. We are not, however, immune from the consequences of interfering with it. We hold fair and free elections that allow us to choose whether to uphold or dismantle laws. That remains the proper path to change. Protest and disagreement are welcome in America. When those protests interfere with or endanger legal procedures, it is then appropriate to defer to our justice system.
Our justice system is admired around the globe because, in the midst of protest or confrontation with law enforcement, we have the option to surrender. We may be arrested, treated humanely, and take our day in court to broadcast our grievances to the world. In the case of Renee Good, law enforcement did not drag her from her home and murder her in cold blood. They did not catch her in crossfire to ensure a massive lawsuit. Officers did not descend on her neighborhood and pull her from a vehicle in the dark of night without identification.
Renee Good drove into an area where a legal roundup of criminals was taking place, initiating contact with authorities. She and her partner taunted officers and interfered with lawful operations. When an officer, justified or unjustified, stood in front of her vehicle, she chose the gas pedal instead of the brakes.
Renee Good placed herself into a volatile situation and made a deliberate effort to be there. She went out of her way to enter what was clearly a hostile environment, and it ended predictably. I would expect nothing less. There is nothing preventing anyone from voting for open borders, nothing stopping peaceful protest, and certainly nothing condemning speaking up for one’s beliefs. But when someone crosses the line into criminal behavior, a choice must be made: abide by the law and make your case in court, or go out on your chosen shield in hopes of being viewed as a martyr.
Before choosing the latter, make certain the cause is worthy and righteous.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here