I'm not presently convinced from the available footage that he was even "bumped," although it's possible that his body at some point made contact with the vehicle.
I don’t know why this has broken so many rationalist brains.
You can say immigration law is immoral.
You can say that the officer should not have shot. These are all reasonable takes.
But it’s quite clear that Good was interfering with law enforcement. That she intentionally sought out conflict. That once confronted she refused clear instructions from officers. That her spouse encouraged her to flee- that she then drove at an officer and struck him.
The officer involved is an Iraq vet with a Filipino wife. AFAICT no one has anything bad to say about him. There’s no universe in which this man is willing to just randomly kill people.
What you covering here is not lawlessness of conservatives. Rather it is your own lawlessness. You are willing to violate a law the you think is immoral (immigration)- conservatives are simply willing to use violence to enforce good law.
I don’t disagree we could face civil war- but let’s be clear- it’s the left defecting from the constitutional order.
If you don’t want ICE agents deporting illegal immigrants, win the election and change the law- don’t send young mothers off to interfere with law enforcement.
A reality-based person cannot look at the mountain of instances of ICE *not* doing law enforcement and instead just beating people over the head or harassing citizens, and conclude that innocent people like Good are "interfering" with something lawful and important. They are a roving gang of thugs and they should be watched and obstructed before they start killing more people (which they have done since Good's death).
> There’s no universe in which this man is willing to just randomly kill people.
without responding to anything else in this comment, I want to note that you do not give the same deference to a mother of three with 0 prior indication of violence. This is at best a strange gap, at worst intentional blinders. "There's no universe in which this *woman* is willing to just randomly kill people." Note too that said woman did not sign up for a profession that involves actively carrying a gun and inflicting force on literal random strangers, while the other guy is, as you note, a person trained to kill
Don’t dispute that she was NOT trying to hurt the officer. But she:
Sought out conflict
Antagonize the officers
Refused clear instructions
Hit the officer with her car.
The we- with time to think and full possession of the facts- can see clearly the officer wasn’t in danger is not relevant. What’s relevant is that the officer had to make a quick decision on the basis of the facts available and with a car driving towards him.
Again- you can say he made the wrong decision- and I agree- and he probably agrees- but Decker’s point is inane. This man is not a brown shirt looking to execute people.
I still think you're being strangely deferent to the guy who killed someone.
- you say that she sought out conflict, but ignore the escalation of the officers (approaching a vehicle that was not meaningfully blocking traffic, attempting to arrest a woman without the authority to do so, and, of course, pulling a firearm to begin with)
- you say she antagonized the officers (how? because she said "I'm not mad at you"?), but ignore the officer saying "fucking bitch" and the aggressive attempts at arresting her
- you say she hit the officer with her car, which is of course wildly disputed. But you also dismiss the fact that he shot her several times when well out of range of the car
The officer, in all cases, has more responsibility than the civilian. The officer is meant to be trained. The officer is given a badge and a gun and authority with the understanding that there is more culpability that comes with those things. Why are you framing this as if the officer is the wind, a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with? The officer has agency -- literally, their title is "agent" -- and as a result the blame lies with the man pulling the trigger.
it's unclear whether quirkyllama is a fascist who just wants to hurt brown people, a pseudofascist who really believes this is about illegal immigrants, or a bot run by fascists to divert discourse by prompting endless debate
fascists use a 'distributed denial of reality' attack
Exactly. I'm sure if time paused and the guy could contemplate it from all angles he'd have deferred from shooting, but he did have a legitimate fear for his life in the moment and if the 'resistance' is going to constantly skate as close to the line as possible even if ICE's error rate is 0.001% it's going to generate issues. Especially when an 'error' is 'a controversial video is generated' not actually breaking the rules in place
most of that is not true, you're just a retarded MAGA apologist who believes your dear leader over your own eyes. She didn't drive at or strike anyone and the officer called her a fucking bitch after he shot her. kys
There are laws about immigration, which should either be enforced or changed.
There are also laws about how laws are enforced - how officers of the law should behave, what they can and can't legally do. Things like habeas corpus, probable cause, trial by jury, and so on. Such laws are in a sense more fundamental than the specific laws being enforced, since they form the basis for the justice system itself.
Laws should be enforced, within the bounds laid down by the law. And in the US, those bounds are deliberately restrictive, with good reason.
In much of the world, police or soldiers or other agents of the state are free to push citizens around. They can come up to you on the street for no particular reason, demand to see your papers, threaten you, beat you up, detain you at will, and so on.
In the USA there are strong legal limits on that kind of thing. That was a big part of the point of the USA, as I understand it. I think many americans seem willing to sacrifice this, because they don't know what they have.
The issue is "what do we do when law breakers maximize the use of each and every legal avenue available to keep breaking the law".
Illegal immigration in the US is based on utilizing legal loopholes and various constitutional rights. In ways opposite we what those were designed to create.
The Trump admin is maximizing the loopholes available in the system to enforce immigration laws against others who do maximise loopholes the other way around
Exactly. If you're going to engage in a broadscale policy of skating as close to the line of physical retaliation as possible on federal agents at scale, you're going to occasionally produce flashpoints of poor optics.
It's a bit disappointing that Decker has been swept in the raw emotion of this one instead of using his usual laserlike omni-directional autism to cut through to the shoot most likely be justified and it'd also be very interesting to get his thoughts on the Babbitt shooting.
Yes. So you think existing laws on immigration- which passed both houses, were signed by the President decades ago- are the equivalent of the Nuremberg laws.
We are agreeing- we both think the left no longer believes in the constitutional order and is willing to fight a civil war.
You admit that this woman was resisting arrest, and decided to escape by driving through space occupied by a law enforcement officer, and yet you continue to assert that this was a "murder". Just completely unhinged
Mere resisting of arrest now grants an officer the right to kill? And OP is the one unhinged? On Jan 6th, had there been the means, would you have been OK with capitol police spraying hundreds or thousands of bullets into the crowd to kill every rioting participant and create pools of blood and pulp where the Trump supporters formerly stood ? If Renée Good driving away at sub-5MPH suffices to strip her of her right to life then surely Jan 6th should have been a bloodbath.
There is a way to avoid civil war. According to Robert Reich, the most sensible action is to disarm ICE. From Reich's recent substack titled "America's Gestapo":
Please demand — call your members of Congress and tell them in no uncertain terms — that the DHS spending bill prohibit ICE and Border Patrol agents from carrying guns and that it unambiguously declare that agents do not have absolute immunity under the law if they harm civilians.
The fascists will only stop when the people start shooting back. I don't know what more needs to happen to get the populace to that point, but the fascists are currently doing everything in their power to provoke a revolution so I doubt it will take much longer. It is what it is.
> *selectively omits or skips the important parts of a substack post (like the part where the federal government effectively grants ICE absolute immunity who is already unaccountable to the public by wearing masks and being totally unidentifiable save for when the moronic DHS bimbo accidentally reveals identifying information about the officer in question)
I believe that the primary foundation of democracy is equality of physical, organized power, rather than power written down on paper. That Americans have long been wealthy, capable of procuring arms, and politically organized seems to explain why the United States has been a democracy for so long. No single group could seize absolute power for themselves if they tried; they would face the guns of countless others. But I fear that the existence of ICE threatens this form of equality.
If ICE agents tend to be political conservatives—I haven't found data after a cursory search, but this seems likely—then unlike the military or a traditional political organization, they are a large, organized group with guns, accountable to the most powerful conservative political figure in the country. I'd like to think liberals would easily be able to oppose such an agency in armed conflict. But if people don't *believe* liberals can face such a threat, then there is nothing that can stop conservative political forces from seizing absolute power, just as Mussolini did with his blackshirts.
I don't mean that civil war is inevitable; I actually think it's unlikely. I mean that the ultimate balance of power would sooner be determined by whoever seems likely to win such a war, and opponents would fold under pressure, reasoning that bloodshed would be pointless. The most effective way to prevent such a war would be the creation of a comparably large organized group of armed liberals.
Does this persuade you of Rothbards critique that no constitution has ever successfully protected rights in the long run and all federalism eventually leads to outcomes like this?
Unfortunately I believe he finishes his essay without an answer. He just laments that we seem to require something better than a constitution, and hopes future generations discover what it is. Implicitly, he would be arguing in favor of anarchy.
I'm not presently convinced from the available footage that he was even "bumped," although it's possible that his body at some point made contact with the vehicle.
I don’t know why this has broken so many rationalist brains.
You can say immigration law is immoral.
You can say that the officer should not have shot. These are all reasonable takes.
But it’s quite clear that Good was interfering with law enforcement. That she intentionally sought out conflict. That once confronted she refused clear instructions from officers. That her spouse encouraged her to flee- that she then drove at an officer and struck him.
The officer involved is an Iraq vet with a Filipino wife. AFAICT no one has anything bad to say about him. There’s no universe in which this man is willing to just randomly kill people.
What you covering here is not lawlessness of conservatives. Rather it is your own lawlessness. You are willing to violate a law the you think is immoral (immigration)- conservatives are simply willing to use violence to enforce good law.
I don’t disagree we could face civil war- but let’s be clear- it’s the left defecting from the constitutional order.
If you don’t want ICE agents deporting illegal immigrants, win the election and change the law- don’t send young mothers off to interfere with law enforcement.
A reality-based person cannot look at the mountain of instances of ICE *not* doing law enforcement and instead just beating people over the head or harassing citizens, and conclude that innocent people like Good are "interfering" with something lawful and important. They are a roving gang of thugs and they should be watched and obstructed before they start killing more people (which they have done since Good's death).
> There’s no universe in which this man is willing to just randomly kill people.
without responding to anything else in this comment, I want to note that you do not give the same deference to a mother of three with 0 prior indication of violence. This is at best a strange gap, at worst intentional blinders. "There's no universe in which this *woman* is willing to just randomly kill people." Note too that said woman did not sign up for a profession that involves actively carrying a gun and inflicting force on literal random strangers, while the other guy is, as you note, a person trained to kill
Don’t dispute that she was NOT trying to hurt the officer. But she:
Sought out conflict
Antagonize the officers
Refused clear instructions
Hit the officer with her car.
The we- with time to think and full possession of the facts- can see clearly the officer wasn’t in danger is not relevant. What’s relevant is that the officer had to make a quick decision on the basis of the facts available and with a car driving towards him.
Again- you can say he made the wrong decision- and I agree- and he probably agrees- but Decker’s point is inane. This man is not a brown shirt looking to execute people.
I still think you're being strangely deferent to the guy who killed someone.
- you say that she sought out conflict, but ignore the escalation of the officers (approaching a vehicle that was not meaningfully blocking traffic, attempting to arrest a woman without the authority to do so, and, of course, pulling a firearm to begin with)
- you say she antagonized the officers (how? because she said "I'm not mad at you"?), but ignore the officer saying "fucking bitch" and the aggressive attempts at arresting her
- you say she hit the officer with her car, which is of course wildly disputed. But you also dismiss the fact that he shot her several times when well out of range of the car
The officer, in all cases, has more responsibility than the civilian. The officer is meant to be trained. The officer is given a badge and a gun and authority with the understanding that there is more culpability that comes with those things. Why are you framing this as if the officer is the wind, a force of nature that cannot be reasoned with? The officer has agency -- literally, their title is "agent" -- and as a result the blame lies with the man pulling the trigger.
it's unclear whether quirkyllama is a fascist who just wants to hurt brown people, a pseudofascist who really believes this is about illegal immigrants, or a bot run by fascists to divert discourse by prompting endless debate
fascists use a 'distributed denial of reality' attack
Exactly. I'm sure if time paused and the guy could contemplate it from all angles he'd have deferred from shooting, but he did have a legitimate fear for his life in the moment and if the 'resistance' is going to constantly skate as close to the line as possible even if ICE's error rate is 0.001% it's going to generate issues. Especially when an 'error' is 'a controversial video is generated' not actually breaking the rules in place
most of that is not true, you're just a retarded MAGA apologist who believes your dear leader over your own eyes. She didn't drive at or strike anyone and the officer called her a fucking bitch after he shot her. kys
There are laws about immigration, which should either be enforced or changed.
There are also laws about how laws are enforced - how officers of the law should behave, what they can and can't legally do. Things like habeas corpus, probable cause, trial by jury, and so on. Such laws are in a sense more fundamental than the specific laws being enforced, since they form the basis for the justice system itself.
Laws should be enforced, within the bounds laid down by the law. And in the US, those bounds are deliberately restrictive, with good reason.
In much of the world, police or soldiers or other agents of the state are free to push citizens around. They can come up to you on the street for no particular reason, demand to see your papers, threaten you, beat you up, detain you at will, and so on.
In the USA there are strong legal limits on that kind of thing. That was a big part of the point of the USA, as I understand it. I think many americans seem willing to sacrifice this, because they don't know what they have.
The issue isn't "the limits in the USA".
The issue is "what do we do when law breakers maximize the use of each and every legal avenue available to keep breaking the law".
Illegal immigration in the US is based on utilizing legal loopholes and various constitutional rights. In ways opposite we what those were designed to create.
The Trump admin is maximizing the loopholes available in the system to enforce immigration laws against others who do maximise loopholes the other way around
Exactly. If you're going to engage in a broadscale policy of skating as close to the line of physical retaliation as possible on federal agents at scale, you're going to occasionally produce flashpoints of poor optics.
It's a bit disappointing that Decker has been swept in the raw emotion of this one instead of using his usual laserlike omni-directional autism to cut through to the shoot most likely be justified and it'd also be very interesting to get his thoughts on the Babbitt shooting.
autistic people cannot perceive the fascism as nazi fascism, shriek hysterically when other autistic people get clued
the holocaust was legal
Yes. So you think existing laws on immigration- which passed both houses, were signed by the President decades ago- are the equivalent of the Nuremberg laws.
We are agreeing- we both think the left no longer believes in the constitutional order and is willing to fight a civil war.
what?
your autistic obsession with immigration laws which create masked goons enacting violence and discarding the constitution is extremely online
Or the left's obsession with open borders, willing too have Trump, civil war etc just to keep illegal immigrants in the US.
The reason ICE has to do this, is because now civilised methods and laws to enforce migration laws are all opposed by Democrats
you are delusional, reacting to a false virtual image of 'the left' because your social media bubble always brings you confirmation of your idiot bias
You admit that this woman was resisting arrest, and decided to escape by driving through space occupied by a law enforcement officer, and yet you continue to assert that this was a "murder". Just completely unhinged
the holocaust was legal, your autistic obsession with exonerating the murderer is completely unhinged (and autistic)
Mere resisting of arrest now grants an officer the right to kill? And OP is the one unhinged? On Jan 6th, had there been the means, would you have been OK with capitol police spraying hundreds or thousands of bullets into the crowd to kill every rioting participant and create pools of blood and pulp where the Trump supporters formerly stood ? If Renée Good driving away at sub-5MPH suffices to strip her of her right to life then surely Jan 6th should have been a bloodbath.
the part that would give him the right to kill is the "decided to escape by driving through space occupied by a law enforcement officer" part
Great piece.
Somehow I doubt this post will generate the backlash of the your previous with the opposite headline.
Nicholas. So bloodthirsty. Everyone… is so bloodthirsty. I’m just gonna read my book.
Was working on something aping off of your earlier essay with a similar theme, so sad to see that you've beaten me to it.
The-alt right elite human capital hananiac army would crush the liberals in a civil war, so there's no point in it no matter how bad things get.
There is a way to avoid civil war. According to Robert Reich, the most sensible action is to disarm ICE. From Reich's recent substack titled "America's Gestapo":
Please demand — call your members of Congress and tell them in no uncertain terms — that the DHS spending bill prohibit ICE and Border Patrol agents from carrying guns and that it unambiguously declare that agents do not have absolute immunity under the law if they harm civilians.
There was a (mostly) cold civil war, basically 2016 through 2024. These are "mop up" operations.
The fascists will only stop when the people start shooting back. I don't know what more needs to happen to get the populace to that point, but the fascists are currently doing everything in their power to provoke a revolution so I doubt it will take much longer. It is what it is.
>a woman in Minneapolis was murdered
Police kill a thousand people a year. (Is this an unreasonably high number? I don't think so.)
ICE killing one crazy woman in Minneapolis doesn't crack the top thousand problems. Write about something important, like Shrimp Welfare
> *selectively omits or skips the important parts of a substack post (like the part where the federal government effectively grants ICE absolute immunity who is already unaccountable to the public by wearing masks and being totally unidentifiable save for when the moronic DHS bimbo accidentally reveals identifying information about the officer in question)
> "why not write about something important?"
Smh
Somehow I doubt you think that's important either
Are you armed?
I believe that the primary foundation of democracy is equality of physical, organized power, rather than power written down on paper. That Americans have long been wealthy, capable of procuring arms, and politically organized seems to explain why the United States has been a democracy for so long. No single group could seize absolute power for themselves if they tried; they would face the guns of countless others. But I fear that the existence of ICE threatens this form of equality.
If ICE agents tend to be political conservatives—I haven't found data after a cursory search, but this seems likely—then unlike the military or a traditional political organization, they are a large, organized group with guns, accountable to the most powerful conservative political figure in the country. I'd like to think liberals would easily be able to oppose such an agency in armed conflict. But if people don't *believe* liberals can face such a threat, then there is nothing that can stop conservative political forces from seizing absolute power, just as Mussolini did with his blackshirts.
I don't mean that civil war is inevitable; I actually think it's unlikely. I mean that the ultimate balance of power would sooner be determined by whoever seems likely to win such a war, and opponents would fold under pressure, reasoning that bloodshed would be pointless. The most effective way to prevent such a war would be the creation of a comparably large organized group of armed liberals.
Who would have thought, after all this time, that the Third Amendment was the most important one
Does this persuade you of Rothbards critique that no constitution has ever successfully protected rights in the long run and all federalism eventually leads to outcomes like this?
What is Rothbard’s alternative that has a better track record of protecting our rights?
Unfortunately I believe he finishes his essay without an answer. He just laments that we seem to require something better than a constitution, and hopes future generations discover what it is. Implicitly, he would be arguing in favor of anarchy.