dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.

---

Then why is someone paying them?

---

Who's paying them?

---

Who knows. It is obvious someone is.

---

Why do you think it's obvious? What evidence exists?

---

The crowd for hire guy saying so.
Signage that is created very quickly and is the same across different cities.
Equipment and supplies provided en masse.
Protesters occasionally slipping and saying so.

---

This comment is absurdly stupid

We have an artistic friend who has made numerous signs for us for free and fun. They say things like "No Kings' and "Faux King Joke" which is verbiage you can see across the country. The "equipment" cost a handful of dollars.

Our fascist moderator lives in a misinformation bubble

---

His comment isn't stupid at all, just because you don't like it. Your one personal experience doesn't negate the fact that there are widespread issues with organizations manufacturing protests.


Flagged for personal attacks but I hope T4K leaves this up to show you what a "fascist" he isn't.

The wife confirmed it in their statement , they stopped to "help their neighbors." They weren't just driving home or taking their kid to school. They stopped with the intent of obstructing ice. Hope this helps clear up some of the narrative around what she was doing by blocking the street.

This is incredibly moving and tells you a lot about who Renee Good was. pic.twitter.com/JVuSCgOevl

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) January 9, 2026

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.

---

Then why is someone paying them?

---

Who's paying them?

---

Who knows. It is obvious someone is.

In other news, Portland Police confirm the two people shot yesterday are TDA.

---

It's obvious, but you don't know. This is the impartial content you bring us as a " Moderator." Nobody is paying them; there are tens of thousands of people that would cheer this for free.

---

This comment is absurdly stupid.

---

So you are in essence implying that the poster who posted it . . . is stupid.
Got it.

---

Good lord. He said it was a stupid take, not that he's stupid. Yall are ridiculous

DiabloWags said:

---

bearister said:

---

Photos of officer position when shots fired:

https://bsky.app/profile/gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3mbwk24eu2s2b

---

That was what caught my eye as well.
Where his feet were.

Never mind the fact that one officer has his arm inside the car.
What law enforcement department teaches that kind of protocol?

This went from, "I'm not mad at you bro . . . to "I'm going to kill you" in a heartbeat.

With an American citizen no less.
Not someone that was being targeted for deportation, had a weapon, had abducted a child, etc.

---

How about if I let Justice Alito explain that one to you:

"We think our decision in Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194 (2004) (per curiam) squarely demonstrates that no clearly established law precluded petitioners’ conduct at the time in question. In Brosseau, we held that a… https://t.co/CHlufzV0y0

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) January 9, 2026

Here's some legal context for you bud.
9-0 Supreme Court ruling

DiabloWags said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

ICE is hated, you don't need to pay even for sitting in the cold.

---

Then why is someone paying them?

---

Who's paying them?

---

Who knows. It is obvious someone is.

In other news, Portland Police confirm the two people shot yesterday are TDA.

---

It's obvious, but you don't know. This is the impartial content you bring us as a " Moderator." Nobody is paying them; there are tens of thousands of people that would cheer this for free.

---

This comment is absurdly stupid.

---

So you are in essence implying that the poster who posted it . . . is stupid.
Got it.

---

Nope. On the scale of personal attacks, with a 10 being your typical comments, and a 1 being something really mild like calling an argument stupid, this was a 1.5.

I just think trying to play jury, defense attorney and prosecutor is ridiculous. One thing I have not seen is the timeline of the several minutes leading up to this (or a half good elaboration of why they were there in the first place and how it escalated to where things ended). All of that will come out in the inevitable civil (and I would assume state charged criminal) cases.

But I continue to come back to ****TY training and Police work.

Someone asked (it was such a dumb whataboutism) DUi checkpoints. Lets assume that ICE is on a residential street to detain a known person (the idea that they are randomly patrolling in such a place boggles and terrifies the mind so I am not even going to contemplate). A REASONABLE approach, especially given the amount of manpower deployed, would have been to cordon off the block at both intersections to isolate the street. The "observers/Karens" would have been kept there, allowed to film but in no way interferferring. The detention would have been made with overwhelming numbers. Quick detention. Off to process.

That is what happens at DUI checkpoints (at least in the cities I work with). They set them up on streets where a U turn to flee is problematic. Protestors (and about 12 years ago there were protests in Escondido as the police were using checkpoints to seize undocumented's autos in forfeitures) were kept back a block or more. The side streets are cordoned off with barricades and at least 1 patrol car. Traffic is condensed into 1 lane. Pull off areas established. Checkpoints are HIGHLY thought out efforts all designed to protect officers AND the public AND those being checked.

So lets spin out a scenario which is plausible and which just helps underscore how awful ICE is carrying out its mission. We have been told repeatedly what ICE is prioritizing people with criminal records beyond visa stays and illegal entries. We have ICE NOT moving the protestors (who are exerting constitutional rights up to interfering with the police) to a safe distance. Detainee comes out, starts shooting. Karens die. That is BADDDDD law enforcement. Or take a real world example, raiding a busy San Diego restaurant on a Friday night at 5 p.m. when it was KNOWN you would have scores (hundreds) in the neighborhood.

There is also part of me that says that a bunch of people in the administration KNOW what they are doing. That they are TRYING to get a horrible series of events to unfold so they can further crack down. It isn't exactly the Reichstag fire but the only conclusion is that they are bumbling fools or that they are hoping for a tragedy.

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/129669/replies/2633018

I encourage you to watch the video in this post. The statement from the wife makes it clear why they were there

BearlySane88 said:

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/129669/replies/2633018

I encourage you to watch the video in this post. The statement from the wife makes it clear why they were there

---

I think we probably should conclude that the world you live in requires complete obedience to the state and an unflinching belief that protest - be it against a war, an unjust action by the state or incompetence - is one akin to ****ing around and thus if you die you have found out.

I choose to live in the America that says it stands by its founding documents. Trust me, the idea tha tyou think that statement justifies in anyway her killing as "why they were there" says far more about YOU than her.

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/129669/replies/2633018

I encourage you to watch the video in this post. The statement from the wife makes it clear why they were there

---

I think we probably should conclude that the world you live in requires complete obedience to the state and an unflinching belief that protest - be it against a war, an unjust action by the state or incompetence - is one akin to ****ing around and thus if you die you have found out.

I choose to live in the America that says it stands by its founding documents. Trust me, the idea tha tyou think that statement justifies in anyway her killing as "why they were there" says far more about YOU than her.

---

Bro what? I responded to one line of your post specifically. You asked why she was there, the wife said why. Question and answer.

The rest of what you just posted are assumptions made from your imagination. I never said the statement justifies her being killed. I've repeatedly said she shouldn't have been killed and it's awful. The fact you choose to ignore all of that and still post what you posted says a lot about your motives on this board. Protests and free speech are fundamental parts of our country that I stand by and support to the fullest extent.

Try reading and not making assumptions. I will tell you how I feel and think but it's on you to pay attention.

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/129669/replies/2633018

I encourage you to watch the video in this post. The statement from the wife makes it clear why they were there

---

I think we probably should conclude that the world you live in requires complete obedience to the state and an unflinching belief that protest - be it against a war, an unjust action by the state or incompetence - is one akin to ****ing around and thus if you die you have found out.

I choose to live in the America that says it stands by its founding documents. Trust me, the idea tha tyou think that statement justifies in anyway her killing as "why they were there" says far more about YOU than her.

---

Thank you for this.
Excellent post.

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/129669/replies/2633018

I encourage you to watch the video in this post. The statement from the wife makes it clear why they were there

---

I think we probably should conclude that the world you live in requires complete obedience to the state and an unflinching belief that protest - be it against a war, an unjust action by the state or incompetence - is one akin to ****ing around and thus if you die you have found out.

I choose to live in the America that says it stands by its founding documents. Trust me, the idea tha tyou think that statement justifies in anyway her killing as "why they were there" says far more about YOU than her.

---

Bro what? I responded to one line of your post specifically. You asked why she was there, the wife said why. Question and answer.

The rest of what you just posted are assumptions made from your imagination. I never said the statement justifies her being killed. I've repeatedly said she shouldn't have been killed and it's awful. The fact you choose to ignore all of that and still post what you posted says a lot about your motives on this board. Protests and free speech are fundamental parts of our country that I stand by and support to the fullest extent.

Try reading and not making assumptions. I will tell you how I feel and think but it's on you to pay attention.

---

Ahh. I have a difficulty in parsing everyone's comments and attributing whom to whom. My apolgiies. There are other posters above that equate anything other than being a random passerby equate to her essentially willfully aggreeing to put herself in harms way.

I knew she was there as a protestor. Here is what I mean about not having the context leading up). I I am going to suggest a spectrum here of possible actions by observers at an ICE action.

1) Showing up and video taping from some distance (lets say at least 10 to 20 yards) ICE actions.
2) Above with whistle blowing to alert neighbors that ICE is there and not to open doors/be aware.
to.....
3) Being actively within some personal space bubble (3 feet?) and actively blocking them from carrying out their duties.


. Again, in no way justifies her death. But if #1 then really ICE is out of control and it is beyond the pale. #3 is STILL ICE's fault but suggests a key contributing event was _ICE's_ lack of training/manpower to get protestors at a safe distance so then the officers could carry out their duty.

---

Understandable and appreciate that apology. As someone who firmly believes in the first amendment and freedom to assemble, it irked me to have you direct those comments towards me. Apologies from me as well if anything I said was too aggressive.

It's true I do not know what she was doing in the time before the incident but it's clear IMO that #3 is what she was doing and the time of the incident and that's why her wife was let out of the car to film her doing it.

I have repeatedly said that the officer should not have placed himself in the position he did in front her car. Whether that was lack of training or just a boneheaded decisions, I don't know. Either way it was dumb.

What does justify her being shot, legally not morally or ethically, is that she made the choice to drive her car in the direction of the officer. I will repeat, I do not think she should have been shot. I am not celebrating her death. I think all life is sacred and it's a horrible outcome to this event.

DiabloWags said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/129669/replies/2633018

I encourage you to watch the video in this post. The statement from the wife makes it clear why they were there

---

I think we probably should conclude that the world you live in requires complete obedience to the state and an unflinching belief that protest - be it against a war, an unjust action by the state or incompetence - is one akin to ****ing around and thus if you die you have found out.

I choose to live in the America that says it stands by its founding documents. Trust me, the idea tha tyou think that statement justifies in anyway her killing as "why they were there" says far more about YOU than her.

---

Thank you for this.
Excellent post.

---

Lmao. Posted after he already apologized for misrepresenting my views. You're a troll bro.

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.

---

This statement.

Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle

---

And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?

Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.

Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?

---

Past it? She clearly hit him in some fashion.

Also looks like he saw her drive at him.

No he shouldn't have been standing there but that doesn't give her the right to drive through him. Poor training or bad judgment on his part doesn't excuse her actions

---

You keep saying she tried to drive through him when she clearly tried to drive around.

Look, I don't deny that it was a dumb decision by that woman to try to flee in that moment, and also not smart to park her car in that way. But I hold cops to a higher standard of decision-making because they are given guns and authority by the state. So to me it matters a lot where he chose to position himself, same for the one who came up and grabbed at the car door immediately rather than first asking the driver to stop blocking the lane. Don't create a confrontation if you don't have to.

---

If she really tried to drive around, she could have slowly started to move instead of gassing it.

They told her to get out of the car. She didn't. They tried to get her out. Standard procedure for officers. Happens all the time. Again he was in the wrong position. That gave her no right to try to drive away and through him

---

It's standard procedure to immediately run towards the vehicle yelling "get out of the f***ing car" and grab the door handle? I very much doubt that. She barely had a couple of seconds to exit the car before they were already trying to force their way in.

---

So she gets to just drive through people?

---

Did I say that? I'm criticizing how the officers approached the situation. You see no problems there?

---

"She barely had a couple of seconds to exit the car"

Everything you say points to the officers being at fault, in your opinion. This woman made the choice to not only reverse but then step on the gas towards an officer. That's two separate thoughts. Plenty of time to decide to just stop the car but she didn't make that choice.

You justify her actions by saying she didn't have time, yet vilify the officer who had even less time to react to a car being driven at him

---

Yes, I hold agents of the state who are given weapons and authority to a higher standard of professionalism than random civilians. Don't you?

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

if an officer thinks he will be run over then force may be justified.

---

This statement.

Idk how anyone is gonna prove he didn't feel like he's going to be run over when he got hit or "clipped" by her vehicle

---

And we're back to arguing that he got hit. I thought we were past that?

Anyway, IF he thought that then force "may be justified," I said. Question is, should he have thought that? Did he really? Looks like he could see her turning the wheel away from him. I'm not too sure.

Another question: does it matter that he moved himself into harm's way (in front of the vehicle) against what appears to be standard law-enforcement training?

---

Past it? She clearly hit him in some fashion.

Also looks like he saw her drive at him.

No he shouldn't have been standing there but that doesn't give her the right to drive through him. Poor training or bad judgment on his part doesn't excuse her actions

---

You keep saying she tried to drive through him when she clearly tried to drive around.

Look, I don't deny that it was a dumb decision by that woman to try to flee in that moment, and also not smart to park her car in that way. But I hold cops to a higher standard of decision-making because they are given guns and authority by the state. So to me it matters a lot where he chose to position himself, same for the one who came up and grabbed at the car door immediately rather than first asking the driver to stop blocking the lane. Don't create a confrontation if you don't have to.

---

If she really tried to drive around, she could have slowly started to move instead of gassing it.

They told her to get out of the car. She didn't. They tried to get her out. Standard procedure for officers. Happens all the time. Again he was in the wrong position. That gave her no right to try to drive away and through him

---

It's standard procedure to immediately run towards the vehicle yelling "get out of the f***ing car" and grab the door handle? I very much doubt that. She barely had a couple of seconds to exit the car before they were already trying to force their way in.

---

So she gets to just drive through people?

---

Did I say that? I'm criticizing how the officers approached the situation. You see no problems there?

---

"She barely had a couple of seconds to exit the car"

Everything you say points to the officers being at fault, in your opinion. This woman made the choice to not only reverse but then step on the gas towards an officer. That's two separate thoughts. Plenty of time to decide to just stop the car but she didn't make that choice.

You justify her actions by saying she didn't have time, yet vilify the officer who had even less time to react to a car being driven at him

---

Yes, I hold agents of the state who are given weapons and authority to a higher standard of professionalism than random civilians. Don't you?

---

Absolutely and that's why I've said his position was dumb and shooting her was not necessary.

Both of these individuals were in the wrong.

BearlySane88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/129669/replies/2633018

I encourage you to watch the video in this post. The statement from the wife makes it clear why they were there

---

I think we probably should conclude that the world you live in requires complete obedience to the state and an unflinching belief that protest - be it against a war, an unjust action by the state or incompetence - is one akin to ****ing around and thus if you die you have found out.

I choose to live in the America that says it stands by its founding documents. Trust me, the idea tha tyou think that statement justifies in anyway her killing as "why they were there" says far more about YOU than her.

---

Bro what? I responded to one line of your post specifically. You asked why she was there, the wife said why. Question and answer.

The rest of what you just posted are assumptions made from your imagination. I never said the statement justifies her being killed. I've repeatedly said she shouldn't have been killed and it's awful. The fact you choose to ignore all of that and still post what you posted says a lot about your motives on this board. Protests and free speech are fundamental parts of our country that I stand by and support to the fullest extent.

Try reading and not making assumptions. I will tell you how I feel and think but it's on you to pay attention.

---

Ahh. I have a difficulty in parsing everyone's comments and attributing whom to whom. My apolgiies. There are other posters above that equate anything other than being a random passerby equate to her essentially willfully aggreeing to put herself in harms way.

I knew she was there as a protestor. Here is what I mean about not having the context leading up). I I am going to suggest a spectrum here of possible actions by observers at an ICE action.

1) Showing up and video taping from some distance (lets say at least 10 to 20 yards) ICE actions.
2) Above with whistle blowing to alert neighbors that ICE is there and not to open doors/be aware.
to.....
3) Being actively within some personal space bubble (3 feet?) and actively blocking them from carrying out their duties.


. Again, in no way justifies her death. But if #1 then really ICE is out of control and it is beyond the pale. #3 is STILL ICE's fault but suggests a key contributing event was _ICE's_ lack of training/manpower to get protestors at a safe distance so then the officers could carry out their duty.

---

Understandable and appreciate that apology. As someone who firmly believes in the first amendment and freedom to assemble, it irked me to have you direct those comments towards me. Apologies from me as well if anything I said was too aggressive.

It's true I do not know what she was doing in the time before the incident but it's clear IMO that #3 is what she was doing and the time of the incident and that's why her wife was let out of the car to film her doing it.

I have repeatedly said that the officer should not have placed himself in the position he did in front her car. Whether that was lack of training or just a boneheaded decisions, I don't know. Either way it was dumb.

What does justify her being shot, legally not morally or ethically, is that she made the choice to drive her car in the direction of the officer. I will repeat, I do not think she should have been shot. I am not celebrating her death. I think all life is sacred and it's a horrible outcome to this event.

---

See I don't see a #3 by which I mean really actively impeding their actions (jumping to block them, stopping their cars from moving). Not my cup of tea but there a bunch of people out there with cell phones videoing all the time.

One point as an aside - there are a TON of former federal law enforcement people posting on-line really taking issue with the training and actions of the officers.

But on the point of Karnen again - the RIGHT thing to do (but near as I can tell ICE lacks the legal authority to do so - and thus the president should go to Congress and ask for it) is for ICE to get a bull horn and ask all citizens to move awary to a safe distance. Then proceed. And absent that authortiy and abiliy, pack up, move on, come back another day.

At the core that is my problem. I am not going to debate the merits of the POLICY. But lord, if you are going to do it do it well. The Stephen Miller cos play tin pot dictator just got someone killed. Blood on his hands and the administration.

DiabloWags said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The Stephen Miller cos play tin pot dictator just got someone killed. Blood on his hands and the administration.

---

You are correct.

Never mind the gaslighting by Trump, Vance, and Noem calling her a "domestic terrorist" before an investigation had barely even started is more evidence of an authoritarian regime trying to control the narrative with their POWER.

---

No American President has ever tried to control the narrative before, have they?

I don't agree with their usage of the term for this woman though.

DiabloWags said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The Stephen Miller cos play tin pot dictator just got someone killed. Blood on his hands and the administration.

---

You are correct.

Never mind the gaslighting by Trump, Vance, and Noem calling her a "domestic terrorist" before an investigation had barely even started is more evidence of an authoritarian regime trying to control the narrative with their POWER.

It's also sad that there are people here that are blind to this and do nothing but make "excuses" for an Administration that is accountable to no one, not Congress, not to the Constitution, and not to the American people.

But integrity appears to be quite rare these days.
Truly sad.

---

In fairness, even some of the folks here supporting the ICE agents have acknowledged that the government lied about this.

Anarchistbear said:

---

YouGov poll | 1/7

Do you approve of recent protests against ICE actions?

Approve 44%
Disapprove 42%
Not sure 14%

🟦Democratic (72/19 approve)
🟥Republican (74/14 disapprove)
⬜️Independent (46/32 approve)

Link to poll: https://t.co/EeUMOvlmcc pic.twitter.com/6fMDbljn9M

— Politics & Poll Tracker 📡 (@PollTracker2024) January 9, 2026

Jan 7 poll of 2,686 U.S. adults (+/-2.2 points)
% who approve | disapprove of how ICE is handling its job
U.S. adults 39% | 52%
Democrats 9% | 85%
Independents 28% | 56%
Republicans 80% | 14%
(Link in reply) pic.twitter.com/FECgursPgO

— YouGov America (@YouGovAmerica) January 8, 2026

---

Approval of ICE has gone from +16 to -13 since last February.

In September 2024, 19% supported abolishing ICE. It’s now at 42%.

They’re losing public opinion. https://t.co/Fml96rTqlz pic.twitter.com/vzvPyzG7kU

— Richard Hanania (@RichardHanania) January 10, 2026

There are lots of protestors because ICE's behavior has driven public sentiment sharply against them, not because they're getting paid.

🚨 BREAKING: Was just sent a video showing the moments before the shooting.

In it, you can clearly see Renee Good’s vehicle blocking ICE agents for over 3 minutes as she’s dancing to her own car horn.

Kinda ruins some narratives, doesn’t it? pic.twitter.com/aXtiTjAtF9

— Dustin Grage (@GrageDustin) January 10, 2026

New footage showing her blocking the street for a full three minutes before the incident

sycasey said:

---

DiabloWags said:

---

socaltownie said:

---

The Stephen Miller cos play tin pot dictator just got someone killed. Blood on his hands and the administration.

---

You are correct.

Never mind the gaslighting by Trump, Vance, and Noem calling her a "domestic terrorist" before an investigation had barely even started is more evidence of an authoritarian regime trying to control the narrative with their POWER.

It's also sad that there are people here that are blind to this and do nothing but make "excuses" for an Administration that is accountable to no one, not Congress, not to the Constitution, and not to the American people.

But integrity appears to be quite rare these days.
Truly sad.

---

In fairness, even some of the folks here supporting the ICE agents have acknowledged that the government lied about this.

---

Don't speak reason to Diablo. He's turned into a troll that just wants to rage bait people. It's sad because I used to enjoy our debates here

Cal88 said:

---

This is the most balanced take on that incident, from Kim Iversen:

---

Uh…. You call that balanced? We certainly have different definitions of that word if you're seriously suggesting that she isn't taking one side in the argument over the other.

Philadelphia DA Larry Krasner just issued a direct threat to ICE agents:

“If any ICE agent comes to Philly to commit crimes, get the F out… I’ll charge you. You’ll be arrested, tried, convicted. Trump can’t pardon state crimes.”

This is an elected DA openly warning federal law… pic.twitter.com/iueqX2l4wh

— Jake (@JakeCan72) January 9, 2026

It'll be interesting to see this play out

BREAKING: ICE has provided @FoxNews a list of the most egregious criminal aliens they've arrested during their surge in the sanctuary state of Minnesota, & it's the most disturbing list I've ever seen, including numerous convicted child rapists/sodomizers & ten convicted killers,… pic.twitter.com/xukxfLd4gZ

— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) January 10, 2026