Tag: ICE agents

Criminals Don’t Get To Hide Behind the Law: The teachers of treachery are guilty of weaponizing bad decisions for political sedition of our country

What often gets missed in the immediate debate over use‑of‑force standards, escalation protocols, and whether a moving vehicle constitutes a weapon, is the deeper cultural ecosystem that produces these confrontations in the first place. In regions of Minnesota with a long memory of activist‑driven volatility, there exists a pattern of individuals—frequently isolated, economically strained, or wrestling with turbulent personal histories—being drawn into radicalized political spheres that promise meaning and moral purpose. These are vulnerable people searching for identity, who then become tools for professional agitators operating behind the scenes. The public conversation tends to fixate on the split‑second decisions made by ICE agents or police officers under duress, rather than on the networks of ideological operators who cultivate grievance, inflame unrest, and funnel disaffected individuals into increasingly hazardous forms of “activism” designed to provoke confrontation.

This is the recurring dynamic that ties incidents like the George Floyd riots and the Minnesota road‑blocking case together: not merely civil disobedience, but a strategic leveraging of unstable personalities to generate volatile public moments. The recent shooter, a woman who had settled into family life before being swept into hyper‑progressive crusader politics, reflects this same pattern. Her transformation wasn’t spontaneous; it was cultivated. When such individuals are encouraged to see themselves as soldiers in a moral revolution, they can be coaxed into reckless escalation—weaponizing vehicles, obstructing roads, or physically confronting law enforcement—all while the organizers who radicalized them stay comfortably out of harm’s way. Those hidden hands are the real accelerants of social disorder. They create the conditions that force federal officers into impossible corners, and yet they avoid scrutiny while the national spotlight fixates on the ICE agents, the legality of firing trajectories, or the technicalities of vehicle-as-weapon classifications. If genuine solutions are to be found, the focus must shift toward the architects of the broader violent arc—not just the tragic individuals caught in their machinery.

On the morning of January 7, 2026, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, 37, near East 34th Street and Portland Avenue in south Minneapolis—blocks from where George Floyd was killed in 2020. Within hours, federal officials said Good tried to use her SUV as a weapon, while Minnesota’s governor and Minneapolis’s mayor called that narrative false. The FBI asserted sole control over the investigation, as Minnesota’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) said it was abruptly shut out of access to case materials. Protests and vigils followed, alongside arrests and a fiercely contested information war.12  The unsaid but primary issue is the weaponization of the people of that town to attempt sedition by chaos, which is persistent with their immigration strategy and radical politics of those who encourage violence through protests to weaponize the disenfranchised into attempts at government overthrow. 

By week’s end, a preliminary sequence emerged from multiple videos and witnesses: agents converged on a red Honda Pilot; one tried the driver’s door; the vehicle reversed, then moved forward and began turning right; another agent near the front driver’s side fired three rounds at close range while sidestepping. The SUV rolled forward and crashed. Federal officials say an officer was nearly run down; state and local officials dispute that reading of the video. Whatever one’s view of the footage, the conflict over factual interpretation and investigative control is itself a documented fact.345

Good’s identity and life quickly became part of the public record: a Minneapolis mother and U.S. citizen, celebrated by family and friends as warm and community‑minded—that’s the narrative, but her actions show otherwise. Vigils drew crowds across Minnesota and beyond as the incident, captured on video, resonated nationally.67

Control of the investigation became a second flashpoint. The BCA announced it would investigate jointly with the FBI, then said the U.S. Attorney’s Office had ‘reversed course’ so that the FBI alone would lead—and that BCA investigators would no longer have access to evidence, interviews, or scene materials. State leaders called the exclusion ‘deeply disappointing’ and warned it would erode public trust.8910

High‑profile figures framed the shooting through starkly different lenses. Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura called it a ‘murder’ and denounced the administration; Vice President JD Vance repeatedly amplified a new angle of the video and said it vindicated the agent as acting in self‑defense. Others cited the duplicate footage as showing the vehicle turning away when shots were fired, underscoring how contested video interpretation can be.11121314

Two U.S. Supreme Court precedents govern excessive‑force analysis. Graham v. Connor (1989) requires judging force by the Fourth Amendment’s ‘objective reasonableness’—what a reasonable officer would do in the circumstances, without 20/20 hindsight. Tennessee v. Garner (1985) bars using deadly force simply to stop flight; officers must have probable cause that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.1516

Minnesota law overlays that federal floor. Statute § 609.066 defines deadly force—and explicitly includes firing ‘ at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be.’ It authorizes deadly force only when necessary to defend human life or prevent significant bodily harm, as assessed by a reasonable officer based on the totality of the circumstances.17

Minnesota’s high court has also clarified that vehicles, when used in a manner ‘likely to produce death or great bodily harm,’ can constitute ‘dangerous weapons’ under the criminal code—without requiring proof that a driver specifically intended to hit someone. That clarification widens the legal lens: a car may be a weapon, but investigators must still show how its manner of use made deadly force necessary under § 609.066’s standard.1819

Policy guidance has, for decades, cautioned against shooting at moving vehicles, which is why these liberal methods have been encouraged to erode our system of law and order.  Justice Department and many large‑city policies generally bar firing at cars unless the driver presents an imminent lethal threat beyond the vehicle itself, and no reasonable alternative exists—often including stepping out of the vehicle’s path. DHS/ICE policies mirror that baseline with narrow exceptions for imminently lethal threats.20212223

What, then, should decision‑makers evaluate in this case? First, the reasonableness test: Did the agent have probable cause, at the instant of firing, to believe Good posed an imminent threat of death or significant bodily harm? That hinges on angles, distances, speed, available cover, and whether stepping entirely aside was feasible in the split seconds captured on video.45

Second, policy alignment: DOJ/DHS guidance disfavors shooting at moving vehicles absent a reasonable alternative. If investigators conclude that such an alternative existed—e.g., moving out of the path—policy discipline could follow even if prosecutors decline to file charges. Conversely, if no safe alternative existed and the vehicle’s movement created an imminent lethal threat, policy and law may converge.2022

The First Amendment thread is separate but related. Peaceable assembly is protected, but governments may impose content‑neutral time, place, and manner rules that keep streets open and access unobstructed, so long as ample alternatives exist—principles affirmed in Hill v. Colorado. Minnesota’s obstruction statute likewise criminalizes intentionally interfering with an officer performing official duties, with enhanced penalties if the conduct poses a risk of death or serious harm.242526

The information environment matters. Minneapolis officials and national media documented that the FBI blocked the BCA from joint access; that decision—rare in high‑profile force cases—has fueled distrust and calls for transparency.210

One striking data point that shaped early discourse: as of Jan. 7, the city’s crime dashboard showed Good’s killing as Minneapolis’s first recorded homicide of 2026. That fact fueled claims that the case merited exceptional scrutiny—though the classification and dashboard categories themselves became part of the debate.27

Bottom line: The legal questions here are not answered by slogans. They turn on a precise reconstruction of those seconds—what the agent could see, where he stood, whether a safe alternative existed, and whether the vehicle’s movement created an imminent threat. The public’s questions, meanwhile, will only cool if the record is released promptly and the governing standards—constitutional, statutory, and policy—are applied with fidelity rather than spin.  But whatever the case, the enforcement of criminal law cannot be impeded by radicals seeking to overthrow it.  The ICE agents were there to do a job, and these protestors openly sought to disrupt that process.  Then, to hide that crime behind an assumption of free speech and an obligation to seek alternatives to violence by the officer, putting the burden on law enforcement, and not on the criminals themselves.  Criminals seeking seditious intent do not get to hide behind the rules they seek to overthrow.  And that is the merit of this case, and Jesse Ventura should know better. 

Endnotes

1. MPR News, ‘Renee Good killed by ICE agent in Minneapolis,’ Jan. 7, 2026. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/07/shooting-south-minneapolis-ice-agents-federal-operation

2. Associated Press, ‘Minnesota officials say they can’t access evidence after fatal ICE shooting…,’ PBS NewsHour, Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/minnesota-officials-say-they-cant-access-evidence-after-fatal-ice-shooting-and-fbi-wont-work-jointly-on-investigation

3. FOX 9 Minneapolis, ‘Video shows Minneapolis ICE shooting,’ Jan. 7, 2026. https://www.fox9.com/news/video-shows-minneapolis-ice-shooting-woman-dead-jan-7

4. USA TODAY, ‘Experts analyze videos showing use of force,’ Jan. 8–9, 2026. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/08/ice-shooting-minneapolis-use-of-force/88082677007/

5. Star Tribune, ‘What we know about the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis,’ Jan. 11, 2026. https://www.startribune.com/what-we-know-as-questions-grow-about-the-fatal-ice-shooting-in-minneapolis/601559966

6. CBS News, ‘Renee Good… what we know,’ Jan. 10, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/renee-good-killed-ice-minneapolis-what-we-know/

7. ABC News, ‘What to know about Renee Good…,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://abcnews.go.com/US/renee-good-37-year-woman-killed-minneapolis-ice/story?id=129018464

8. FOX 9 Minneapolis, ‘BCA won’t have access; FBI will lead investigation,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-ice-shooting-fbi-investigation

9. CBS Minnesota, ‘BCA withdraws after FBI blocks access,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/bca-withdraws-renee-good-ice-shooting-investigation/

10. POLITICO, ‘Minnesota officials, Trump administration battle over investigation,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/08/minnesota-ice-shooting-investigation-00716296

11. USA TODAY, ‘Jesse Ventura calls Trump a “coward”…,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/09/jesse-ventura-trump-minnesota-governor-ice/88098645007/

12. The Independent, ‘Jesse Ventura calls Trump “a draft-dodging coward”…,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jesse-ventura-trump-minnesota-governor-ice-b2897278.html

13. USA TODAY, ‘New ICE shooting video; JD Vance defends agent,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/09/new-video-ice-shooting-minneapolis-jd-vance/88104371007/

14. Fox News, ‘Vance doubles down on press after new footage,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://www.foxnews.com/media/vance-doubles-down-disgusting-press-new-footage-from-ice-shooting-surfaces-accuses-outlets-lying

15. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

16. Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

17. Minn. Stat. § 609.066 (Authorized use of deadly force by peace officers). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066

18. Courthouse News Service, ‘Cars can be “dangerous weapons,” Minnesota high court rules,’ Jan. 24, 2024. https://www.courthousenews.com/cars-can-be-dangerous-weapons-minnesota-high-court-rules/

19. State v. Abdus-Salam, A22-1551 (Minn. Jan. 24, 2024). https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2024/a22-1551.html

20. Associated Press via WBUR, ‘What to know about the rules for officers firing at a moving vehicle,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/01/08/what-to-know-rules-officers-firing-moving-vehicle

21. Associated Press via U.S. News & World Report, ‘Minneapolis Shooting… Raises Questions About Officers Firing at Moving Vehicles,’ Jan. 7, 2026. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2026-01-07/fatal-shooting-by-ice-agent-in-minneapolis-raises-questions-about-officers-firing-at-moving-vehicles

22. ABC News, ‘What to know about ICE use-of-force policy,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://abcnews.go.com/US/ice-force-policy/story?id=129016014

23. The Conversation, ‘ICE killing… tactics many police warn against,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://theconversation.com/ice-killing-of-driver-in-minneapolis-involved-tactics-many-police-departments-warn-against-but-not-ice-itself-271907

24. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/703/

25. First Amendment Encyclopedia (MTSU), ‘Hill v. Colorado (2000),’ last updated Jan. 11, 2025. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hill-v-colorado/

26. Minn. Stat. § 609.50 (Obstructing legal process, arrest, or firefighting). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.50

27. Snopes, ‘ICE shooting of Renee Good was 1st recorded Minneapolis homicide of 2026,’ Jan. 10, 2026. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/renee-good-ice-shooting-2026-minneapolis-homicides/

Bibliography

ABC News, ‘What to know about ICE use-of-force policy,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://abcnews.go.com/US/ice-force-policy/story?id=129016014

ABC News, ‘What to know about Renee Good…,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://abcnews.go.com/US/renee-good-37-year-woman-killed-minneapolis-ice/story?id=129018464

Associated Press via U.S. News & World Report, ‘Minneapolis Shooting… Raises Questions About Officers Firing at Moving Vehicles,’ Jan. 7, 2026. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2026-01-07/fatal-shooting-by-ice-agent-in-minneapolis-raises-questions-about-officers-firing-at-moving-vehicles

Associated Press via WBUR, ‘What to know about the rules for officers firing at a moving vehicle,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.wbur.org/news/2026/01/08/what-to-know-rules-officers-firing-moving-vehicle

Associated Press, ‘Minnesota officials say they can’t access evidence after fatal ICE shooting…,’ PBS NewsHour, Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/minnesota-officials-say-they-cant-access-evidence-after-fatal-ice-shooting-and-fbi-wont-work-jointly-on-investigation

CBS Minnesota, ‘BCA withdraws after FBI blocks access,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/bca-withdraws-renee-good-ice-shooting-investigation/

CBS News, ‘Renee Good… what we know,’ Jan. 10, 2026. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/renee-good-killed-ice-minneapolis-what-we-know/

Courthouse News Service, ‘Cars can be “dangerous weapons,” Minnesota high court rules,’ Jan. 24, 2024. https://www.courthousenews.com/cars-can-be-dangerous-weapons-minnesota-high-court-rules/

First Amendment Encyclopedia (MTSU), ‘Hill v. Colorado (2000),’ last updated Jan. 11, 2025. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/hill-v-colorado/

FOX 9 Minneapolis, ‘BCA won’t have access; FBI will lead investigation,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-ice-shooting-fbi-investigation

FOX 9 Minneapolis, ‘Video shows Minneapolis ICE shooting,’ Jan. 7, 2026. https://www.fox9.com/news/video-shows-minneapolis-ice-shooting-woman-dead-jan-7

Fox News, ‘Vance doubles down on press after new footage,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://www.foxnews.com/media/vance-doubles-down-disgusting-press-new-footage-from-ice-shooting-surfaces-accuses-outlets-lying

Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/

Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/703/

Minn. Stat. § 609.066 (Authorized use of deadly force by peace officers). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.066

Minn. Stat. § 609.50 (Obstructing legal process, arrest, or firefighting). https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.50

MPR News, ‘Renee Good killed by ICE agent in Minneapolis,’ Jan. 7, 2026. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/07/shooting-south-minneapolis-ice-agents-federal-operation

POLITICO, ‘Minnesota officials, Trump administration battle over investigation,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/08/minnesota-ice-shooting-investigation-00716296

Snopes, ‘ICE shooting of Renee Good was 1st recorded Minneapolis homicide of 2026,’ Jan. 10, 2026. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/renee-good-ice-shooting-2026-minneapolis-homicides/

Star Tribune, ‘What we know about the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis,’ Jan. 11, 2026. https://www.startribune.com/what-we-know-as-questions-grow-about-the-fatal-ice-shooting-in-minneapolis/601559966

State v. Abdus-Salam, A22-1551 (Minn. Jan. 24, 2024). https://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2024/a22-1551.html

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/1/

The Conversation, ‘ICE killing… tactics many police warn against,’ Jan. 8, 2026. https://theconversation.com/ice-killing-of-driver-in-minneapolis-involved-tactics-many-police-departments-warn-against-but-not-ice-itself-271907

The Independent, ‘Jesse Ventura calls Trump “a draft-dodging coward”…,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/jesse-ventura-trump-minnesota-governor-ice-b2897278.html

USA TODAY, ‘Experts analyze videos showing use of force,’ Jan. 8–9, 2026. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/08/ice-shooting-minneapolis-use-of-force/88082677007/

USA TODAY, ‘Jesse Ventura calls Trump a “coward”…,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/01/09/jesse-ventura-trump-minnesota-governor-ice/88098645007/

USA TODAY, ‘New ICE shooting video; JD Vance defends agent,’ Jan. 9, 2026. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/01/09/new-video-ice-shooting-minneapolis-jd-vance/88104371007/

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Beat the Hell Out of Them: Crushing the socialist protestors at the Roebling Bridge in Cincinnati

As I said, the ICE agents who had rocks thrown at them in California, detaining illegal aliens from that pot farm, should have shot them.  They had every right to do so.  So I was thrilled to see that the Covington, Kentucky police physically bloodied a bunch of stringy-haired protestors as they tried to close the Roebling Suspension Bridge over a protest of Ayman Soliman, the former Cincinnati Children’s Hospital chaplain, detained by ICE on July 9th, 2025.  For some ridiculous reason, someone has told these loser socialists that shutting down highways and bridges was a thing they could do to express free speech.  It is not.  And certainly not in my town. I use that bridge all the time, and it should not be closed down by a bunch of protestors cheering on illegal activity.  I have no tolerance for it.  We hire law enforcement to enforce laws.  And when the protestors dug in and started getting pushy, the Covington Police beat the hell out of those protestors and arrested them like the scrappy losers that they are.  It’s one thing to see these things happening in some far away place like California, where their politics has fallen off the edge of the earth with liberalism.  It’s quite another to see something like that happen in the heartland city of Cincinnati, not in my town.  I want to see our highways, bridges, and sidewalks open at all costs, despite the impediments of protestors.  They do not have the right to shut down anything in protest, and it’s about time they are taught a lesson about impeding traffic.  When it comes to using violence to maintain law and order, I’m 100% for it.  As the videos of this violence at the bridge went viral, I was very proud of the Covington, Kentucky, police department. 

The protestors crossed the line when they tried to stop a black SUV driven by an out-of-town tourist, as the insurgents were banging on the hood and vandalizing the vehicle as it attempted to push through the crowd.  Police issued warnings and tried to be as kind as possible, but they ended up arresting 15 of the 100 or so protesters at the site, including two CityBeat journalists, Madeline Fening and Lucas Griffith.  The charges include felony rioting, unlawful assembly, failure to disperse, obstructing a highway, criminal mischief, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.  The Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America claimed that the police “violently broke up” the protest, alleging some of the arrestees were beaten and required medical treatment.  An attorney for the miscreants, Benjamin Pugh, argued that the police escalated the situation and did not give sufficient time to disperse.  So that is the cast of characters involved, and I have no sympathy for the CityBeat journalists.  As I have said about them for many decades, they exist to breed these kinds of losers in our youth culture, so they are as guilty of why those protestors thought they could get away with this kind of thing in the first place, as anybody.  There’s plenty of bad to go around, and it’s good that the Covington Police did not allow these individuals to embarrass our city of Greater Cincinnati in front of the nation.  The message we want to send to all these socialist and communist sympathizers is zero tolerance for their view of the world.  That’s where we are these days, as I have been saying for a long time.  These aren’t just Democrats with differing political views.  These are people who want to overthrow our society, which is why they are upset at the ICE deportations, because all those illegal immigrants are part of their strategy to destroy our law and order society.

However, here is a statement for attorneys like Mr. Pugh, who involved himself in this case: the public’s right to free egress exceeds the right of one individual to express their free speech.  People can say and hold whatever opinion they want about anything.  But they don’t have the right to force someone else to have that opinion.  And stopping traffic is an expression of a free speech opinion by force.  The protesters are saying, ‘Join me in my opinion; otherwise, I’m not going to let you use this bridge or travel down this highway.’  Time is an essential thing, and people in a free society cannot have others impose restrictions on their movement to coerce their opinions politically.  The protesters could have written an article, or spoken on YouTube or TikTok about the deportation of the Egyptian Ayman Soliman.  However, they did not have the right to block traffic to get attention or put their hands on the car of someone trying to cross the bridge.  This Marxist notion of damaging private property to communicate political opinions just isn’t going to fly.  We are a private property country.  A mob of losers does not get to override every principle of personal freedom that we have in our society, and one of the fundamental rights that we have is the right to egress.  The right to move around unimpeded and the freedom to enjoy our lives.  That’s why the bridge exists, so that people can travel from one place to another.  That’s why the roads exist.  A protester does not have the right to take that freedom away from people to force their opinions on an issue, due to having no other option but violence to get their point across. 

Once the protestors made a move to close the road, the Convington Police had a right and obligation to remove them and restore that freedom of egress.  There is no group sentiment, such as the Ignite Peace Cincy group, that has the right to close down any roads or even make someone walk around them on a sidewalk.  Any imposition on the personal freedoms of anybody warrants a violent removal of that impediment.  There is no right to Free Speech, which means people who don’t share those opinions have to be inconvenienced by any method.  People ultimately have a choice, and if that choice is removed from them, including the option to listen to socialist protestors or not, or to read that socialist social magazine, CityBeat, or not, the frustrated advocates of a political position don’t get to threaten free people and their private property in any way at all.  Especially trying to stop them from crossing a bridge and vandalizing their property, as if the group mob decided what was valuable socially, or what was acceptable.  And in this case, Ayman Soliman might have been a nice guy who fled persecution in his homeland in 2014 for his work as a freelance journalist covering the Arab Spring.  He was granted asylum in 2018, but that was revoked in June of 2025, leading to his arrest by ICE on July 9th.  He was a Muslim chaplain at Cincinnati Children’s and a board member at the Clifton Mosque, so a lot is happening with him that aligns with the profile of the Democrat Party and the way they want to shape our country politically.  But when people don’t want to hear what they have to say, they don’t get to take away choice from people, so that they do.  Any attempt to do that warrants violence against the protestors attempting it.   And no compassion for individual circumstances justifies anything done at the Roebling bridge, other than the police shutting it down and arresting with violence the perpetrators.  And I would have fully supported much more violence.  Because when I want to use that bridge, which happens often, I don’t want stringy-haired hippie socialists blocking the way.   Get them off the road, by any means necessary.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

I Would Have Shot Them: No protestor has a right to throw rocks, under any conditions

I would have shot them, the protestors who were throwing rocks at the ICE vehicles leaving the illegal immigration raid on the pot farm in California.  Rocks are considered a deadly weapon, and any federal agent who is hit by a rock is no different than having some lunatic lunge at them with a knife, or to fire a shot from a gun.  And throwing rocks into the driver’s side window of a Federal vehicle, shatter-resistant or not, is solid enough ground to use deadly force to stop.  With shatterproof glass, once a window starts to become compromised, and some of those vehicles were, continued impacts in the same area could allow the rocks to get through, and those could have been deadly.  The ICE agents did not have an obligation to flee, which they were trained to do, and that is part of the problem.  We are a stand-and-fight country, especially when it comes to law enforcement.   Those agents were just doing their jobs, and those rock-throwing ICE protestors were crossing the line with encouraged violence.  And part of that encouragement was that they did not think that the ICE agents would fight back, which encouraged the violence in the first place.  The reason many of these protests are so violent and dangerous is that there has grown an expectation that all government employees have been trained to flee rather than fight, and this has caused unwarranted aggression to grow with the expectation that violence would only flow one way.  And it would be far healthier for society to understand that impeding government operations with deadly force opens the door for a deadly response.  And as hard as those protestors were throwing those rocks at those fleeing vehicles, their deadly motivations couldn’t have been presented more obviously. 

I know it’s a pain in the neck to fill out the forms when you do shoot someone, but this California case called for it.  And it would have made future protestors think twice before doing it again.  All they would have had to do upon a rock impact striking the driver’s side window was to get out of the car and open fire into the nearest perpetrator, shooting to kill.  The paperwork processing would have been fine.  I know that the bosses of the ICE agents, trained under years of progressive understanding, have been taught to use non-lethal force and to play patty cake with these kinds of people, and none of them want to kill protestors on their watch.  So they put these ICE agents out knowing that the environment is more dangerous because of their policy decisions, because they encourage violence by not meeting it when it presents itself.  And now an entire generation of protestor types believe they can exert deadly force without having it turn back on them, and nobody takes it seriously any longer.  Nobody should think that throwing a rock at anybody is appropriate under any condition.  And at some point, ICE agents need to fight back.  Rubber bullets and stun guns just aren’t enough to use against stringy-haired socialists and radical left-wing America haters.  Before a protester arrives on the scene to throw a rock, they need to be aware of the potential consequences.  And these kids in California had no such fear, even to the point of running right up to the passenger’s side window of fleeing vehicles and tossing big rocks with all their force into windows they didn’t know were shatter-resistant or not.  At the least, they cause a lot of property damage that taxpayers are on the hook for, and the preservation of their mangy lives wasn’t worth it.  Once they decided to throw a rock, all consideration for their preservation was no longer relevant.

And is this what we’re talking about preserving, as far as the jobs illegal immigration performs, to work as underage pot pickers on a farm that provides marijuana to an already sketchy market?  I love the work ethic of immigrant labor.  I always appreciate hard workers.  But we’re supposed to believe that we have to accept tens of millions of illegal immigrants to cover jobs like this pot farm in California?  These are the kinds of jobs that I find personally useless, and if that’s what it takes to bring down the price of pot in legal states, then let the prices fall off the rocker.  Clean operations that are financially solid wouldn’t need illegal immigration to perform basic tasks.  And now watching some of the ridiculous comments from some of these ICE protestors, such as the current L.A. Mayor, are grotesquely overstated.  Even going so far as to say that we won’t be able to get our cars washed if we deport all these illegals.  If we deported tens of millions of illegals, it’s evident that legitimate businesses would be just fine, and people would not notice.  But what would be impacted are all the illegitimate businesses that are operating under the table, and that sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing.  Eliminating under-the-table labor would force many companies to clean up their current employment practices, which the California facility was found to be guilty of.  And defending that way of life was why rocks were justified in being thrown?  I don’t think so.  This isn’t a free speech issue; it’s an insistence on breaking the law issue, and ultimately comes down to law enforcement and whether everyone respects the basic premise of law and order. 

So I would have shot those protestors on the spot after the first rock had been thrown.  Granted, my profile type would likely keep me from any kind of federal employment.  I am a very aggressive concealed carry individual.  I openly walk around ready for violence all the time, and everyone knows it.  I would prefer not to shoot people, but I am always prepared to do so as soon as danger presents itself.  And my thinking on that is to call a spade what it is, and not to feed the perpetuation of violence with passive presentation of my livelihood.  And if everyone had that attitude, there would be a lot more respect for federal agents than we currently have.  However, the kind of administrative personnel we put in these jobs do not hire people like me; they have made a lot of DEI hires who would prefer not to blame people when bad things happen.  So that’s certainly part of the problem.  But until we do start seeing people shot for perpetuating violence into an otherwise peaceful society, we’ll see increases in violence that we just can’t tolerate, such as in the ICE raid on that California pot farm, a place of business that shouldn’t have been operating on a good day.  To keep a company like that alive is only making society worse upstream by producing the product it does.  So it would have been good for the government ICE agents to stand and fight, rather than flee and retreat as rocks were being thrown at their vehicles.  The moment a rock struck a car, the entire engagement changed, and deadly force should have been used.  We have to stop playing nice with these anti-American forces.  I would even go so far to say that lethal force should be used upon the burning of the American flag because such a jesture isn’t a free speech right, it’s a purposeful display that the laws of America are being cast aside, which makes the people doing so very dangerous, and in need of removal to maintain the peace.  And those are the discussions we need to be having.  And if I were driving those cars, there would have been less rock throwing, because those protestors would have been shot where they stood.  I would have gladly filled out the paperwork and still been home in time for dinner without a second thought.

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

Treason and Sedition Carry With Them the Death Penalty: And that is clearly what is happening in the riots against ICE Agents

This isn’t hard, guys.  Anybody who funds the purposeful destruction of our country is committing treason, and advocating for the destruction of our country is sedition.  People can and should be executed for such an offense.  We’re not talking about a free speech argument in relation to what is happening in Los Angeles and other cities around America.  For legal definitions, treason is the crime of betraying one’s country, typically involving acts such as waging war against it or aiding its enemies.  In the U.S., it’s defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution as levying war against the U.S., adhering to its enemies, or giving them aid and comfort, requiring two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court for conviction.  For anybody hiring protestors to block traffic and fight against the police, National Guard, or ICE Agents, all employees of the federal government who report to our elected representation in the White House, which defines the American government, are committing acts of treason.  Sedition is conduct or speech inciting rebellion or resistance against a government’s authority, often just short of treason.  It typically involves actions or words that promote disorder or overthrow lawful authority, such as organizing or encouraging riots against the state, as seen in Los Angeles.  Whoever writes a check advocating for the riots of Los Angeles could be prosecuted, and even executed with the death penalty, for their contributions.  And it would be perfectly fine to apply that standard to hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have worked to organize these riots.  The only thing that is a little ambiguous in these cases is how an enemy is defined.  We traditionally look at enemies as foreign governments.  However, to avoid the wrath of the United States and its superior firepower, enemies have disguised their true intentions behind political movements, such as socialism, communism, and Marxism, to conceal their true nature, hoping to shield their actions under the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause.  

Treason, as defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2381, carries the punishment of death, or imprisonment for not less than five years, and a fine of not less than $10,000.  And a convicted person is incapable of holding any office under the United States.  Sedition is addressed under 18 U.S.C. § 2384.  If convicted, a person faces up to 20 years in prison, a fine, or both.  More than enough reports are tying the treasonous and seditions acts of the mob planners to communist China, a known and declared enemy to the United States of America, so that pretty much sums it up.  The riots against ICE agents are not free speech protests, and all the politicians who have been cheering them on, like Maxine Waters, could easily be charged and removed from office for their actions.  This is not ambiguous; it’s clearly stated and aligns with border policy.  There is no room for alternative opinions on the matter.  Any contrary belief system is part of this open border movement that hides their criminal acts behind what is generally believed to be a right to protest and petition a government.  The only reason they think this behavior can be hidden is due to the lack of intelligence or conviction that people now possess, as our education systems have helped facilitate such watered-down opinions.  And this is the same mode of operation that we have seen recently in Paris.  Foreign immigrants and their supporters carrying signs of Marxism, swinging around foreign flags, and burning the flag of their domestic country in protest are purposely seeking to end any border distinction around the world.  And that strategy is treasonous.  And suppose the influence comes from outside the country of origin. In that case, they and their partners are behaving in a seditious manner and can be prosecuted as perpetrators of war against the host country. 

When someone says that there is no evidence, or that there is no proof that so and so has ever been charged with a crime of treason or sedition, what they are saying is that the people who collect evidence didn’t collect it.  And that the proof is everywhere, but law enforcement was afraid to apply it.  Or that a person hasn’t been charged, because the law enforcement was too lazy to file a charge for the crime.  And they would do that for many reasons.  We have learned that through the Bar Associations, sentiments in favor of social justice are often influenced by Marxist ideas, and that we have placed too much trust in lawyers who share these views.  It’s fair to say that all collectivist-based associations, even homeowner associations these days, are filled with Marxist propaganda so that the value judgment against overthrowing a country has been watered down to the point where they are paralyzed in social judgments, which is in and of itself seditious behavior against a host country.  The assumption is that we are all now global citizens and that the borders of a nation are no longer relevant.  Therefore, attempting to have the courts punish treason and sedition is pointless, so anyone trying to protect their career would be reluctant to present such evidence, fearing they would lose in court and fall out of favor in the promotion loops controlled by those same individuals.  Evidence is never brought forward, charges are never filed, because prosecutors do not think that judges will rule in their favor.  And we have seen why they fear this, because many judges are openly trying to use the law to stop the Trump administration, as they see it, from being the established representative of the American people. 

So, a lack of will, or to accept that many of our institutions have been poisoned with Marxism and elements hostile to the American way of life, does not change the definition of treason and sedition.  What has been happening in the L.A. riots is both.  Any person who raises a fist to sworn officers of our government is openly declaring war against the state and can, and should be, charged as such.  Call it fascism.  Call it tyranny.  Call it whatever you want.  But what it is is treason and sedition.  We elect our representatives through honest elections, who then make up the state.  So we are the “state.”  And the best protest against a government is to work to elect new people into office.  However, overthrowing the system itself is a death penalty kind of crime.  This is not the same as the January 6th prisoners when Biden was inserted into the government.  Because that government was put into power through election fraud, and in that case, the established government was overthrown by the same methods as the riots in L.A. have been advanced.  And the money trail connects the guilty parties to the crimes.  These are not rights protected by the First Amendment.  These are hostile perpetrators of violence and anti-American activities.  And that if Trump’s administration puts to death all the organizers, as under the law they have a right and obligation to do, the American people will stand behind their elected representatives.  And they would even reward that political party with a greater majority in the upcoming midterms.  People do not want to see Marxist rioters in their streets causing harm, social disruption, and inconvenience.  They do not want to see their police harassed or ICE agents being prevented from carrying out their duties.  It’s time to get tough, real tough.  And stop playing games with people who want to destroy our country.  Especially those funding these riots.  Put them down, arrest them, charge them, and push for convictions for the death penalty.  And stop playing games.  The law is quite clear on this, and it’s time to enforce it the way it deserves. 

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707