Here's the Thread Explaining Why ICE Killing a Crazed Leftist Who Attacked Federal Agents Was Justified

Matt Vespa | January 08, 2026 12:30 PM

Renee Nicole Good, 37, led anti-ICE convoys. She wanted to disrupt their operations. It got her killed. In Minneapolis, Minnesota, yesterday, Good rammed into ICE agents who opened fire and killed her. It was a justified shooting. The other angles clearly show Good ramming an agent. Second, even if she didn’t, it still constitutes assault.

Is this the video Mayor Frey is talking about?pic.twitter.com/YlVpQZoDRM https://t.co/QI8ai7R2kJ
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) January 7, 2026

🚨 BREAKING: New angle from the ICE involved shooting in Minneapolis shows the woman CLEARLY hitting the agent with her car before he fires at her

A vehicle is a deadly weapon. And she used that deadly weapon against an agent.

Self-defense. pic.twitter.com/kw3SbBzSrP
— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) January 7, 2026

Amy Swearer, a Senior Legal Fellow in the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, reviewed the video footage and came to this conclusion: It was a justified use of deadly force

I've now watched the Minneapolis ICE shooting from three different angles, and there's no real question -- it was quite obviously a legally justified use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer. That officer faced an unknown subject who, while ignoring lawful commands,…
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) January 7, 2026

And for the "it was an illegal arrest because ICE has no authority to detain American citizens, etc." crowd...

Minnesota law explicitly authorizes federal immigration agents to make warrantless arrests when, within the scope of assignment, they come upon reasonable cause to… pic.twitter.com/Wm9gNlhY4Y
— Amy Swearer (@AmySwearer) January 8, 2026

I've now watched the Minneapolis ICE shooting from three different angles, and there's no real question -- it was quite obviously a legally justified use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer. That officer faced an unknown subject who, while ignoring lawful commands, pointed a 3000+ lbs. car at him and evidenced an intent to continue driving that car. He shot the driver (1) after the driver made physical contact with his body and (2) through the front windshield. You can slow down the video all you want and spend minutes analyzing micro-seconds to make after-the-fact assessments of the likelihood the driver actually intended to use the car as a lethal weapon. In reality, during those micro-seconds in real time, it's reasonable to presume that a driver ignoring your commands to stop is about to floor the gas peddle, turn the wheel into you, and run you over. It's no different than the reasonable presumption that the suspect who ignores your commands to keep their hands up and reaches for the gun in their waistband intends to use it against you rather than toss it away.