536
Protesters decrying the killing of Renée Good know what they saw with their own eyes.
(www.motherjones.com)
this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
536 points (99.4% liked)
News
34120 readers
3325 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not that they seem to need court rulings to imprison people these days, but ICE jackboots are still U.S. citizens and federal agents. Someone pepperspraying a federal agent would set themselves up for a number of potential charges related to assault with a weapon and interfering with law enforcement.
Don't forget that with law enforcement officers, it's "rules for thee but not for me." You are held to a higher standard than they are, and they have more rights than you.
If a federal agent is conducting an illegal violent action at you, can you not defend yourself? It's probably smart to study up on specifics for anyone involved in the streets
Dude, they just shot a woman in the face 4 times for driving NEAR them with literally no consequences. You think they won't just open fire on a group if one of them gets hit with pepper spray?
I genuinely don't know what they'd do, which is why someone should try it defensively if they're being attacked. It's easy to say that sitting in a chair hundreds of miles away from it, but I think protestors need to try other tactics, because just whistles ain't doin shit.
Someone else should try [violence] defensively if they're being attacked because YOU don't know what they'd do in return? When the whole thing is about trying to manufacture justification for martial law? What the fuck is wrong with you?
If YOU want to go get violent with ICE, no one is stopping you. Stop trying to get others to do it for you.
Then why are the House Republicans crying about it?
lol read my comment again
I said it's easy to say when you're not the one doing it. We, as people against this regime, ought to be trying all kinds of different strategies and observe their reactions to probe for weaknesses. I don't think outright violence on its own will be productive.
Who do you think isn't doing what? You personally are free to try all the strategies you want. Stop trying to get others to do them for you "for science" as you put elsewhere, like this is all just a big fucking joke to you. "lol"
I'd like to remind you that it was NON-VIOLENCE in protests that got the National Guard out of Portland in November. From the first paragraph of the final ruling:
https://www.opb.org/pdf/FINDINGS%20OF%20FACT%20AND%20CONCLUSIONS%20OF%20LAW_1762564569662.pdf
And that's Portland. Today, Minnesota and Illinois filed suit as well, and if the protests remain peaceful, both have every reason to win. Here's today's suit from Minnesota against ICE:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268/gov.uscourts.mnd.230268.1.0.pdf
Here's the Illinois suit:
https://aboutblaw.com/bkDs
You should read them. They're not difficult. And they are how non-violence will win: it's far easier to fight fascists via the still-operational courts now than to try to evict them once martial law is in place.
Non-violent protests work in all kinds of ways, not just toward the regime but in community and network building, resource sharing, immunizing those present against propaganda that says they're alone and media distortions of the protests they personally attend, with all the felt solidarity of walking out with people determined to prove that they all feel the same way.
Violent protests -- or to use the government term for them, riots -- do the opposite. They repulse peace lovers, invite media exaggeration and misrepresentation, are used even years later in propaganda, and above all they are the pretext the government is looking for to institute martial law, by law, across ALL 50 states.
It's not a joke to me. Stop trying to suggest "various strategies" for your personal entertainment that include violence because they provably do not work.
EDITED to add link to Illinois suit
Regime changes have been more successful with mainly non-violent protests than violent protests in history. The goal should be to remove the current people in power through legal means. I fully understand that.
However, would you call pushing an agent "violence"? Because there has been a ton of that. I'm saying a few pepper sprays here or there when they're genuinely defending a violent aggressor who is illegally attacking them would make those on the ground think twice.
I'm not saying attack anyone. Don't shoot anyone, etc. Also all over social media there are massive astroturfing campaigns from Russian, Chinese, Iranian, hell maybe even American bots/provocateurs to get protesters to start more violence, to cause the US to implode quicker. I understand all of that. You seem to be overly angry at random social media users.
I'm angry at all the commenters here to suggest that Americans should fight in the streets, for whatever reason. You did that repeatedly and almost as a joke.
I can't speak to allegations of "pushing" one way or another because for all the videos I have seen myself, I have seen exactly zero ICE agents being pushed, and frankly your claim that it's happening seems blatantly unbelievable without some kind of video. If you have it, link it.
But while I'm bringing the receipts, here's the TRO (temporary restraining order) that got the National Guard kicked out of Chicago: after this was filed and the orange pedo lost on appeal, he abandoned his effort to keep the National Guard there:
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/46a35c5459e8b073/66434a34-full.pdf
Again, proof that non-violence is working and the courts are holding. As long as they do, lay off suggestions of non-peaceful resistance.
I've seen large groups of people pushing a few agents off from abducting some latinos, and it works. I've seen probably 5 different videos in the last few months of that. It actually works to save people from being disappeared when we have the numbers.
Where is your red line for getting "serious"? When he cancels midterms or otherwise rigs it against any Democrats? What they just ignore the courts (as they've done a bunch of times in other areas).
I have no idea what you mean by "serious," only that you clearly mean something different by that word than I do, to the point that you offer it in quotes as though it is your euphemism for something else. Go ahead and define it if you want to discuss it.
And I have no idea what you mean by "red line" either. A line suggests a point at which I will change from one position to another, but I've repeatedly and explicitly stated my positions without generalities all along. Why do you have such difficulty stating what you plainly mean? Just go ahead and say it. What are you referring to by "red line"?
EDITED TO ADD: You know what, never mind. I've reread your comments and you are clearly just advocating for violence. Get lost. Blocking you now.
Dude read the fucking room
Everyone should determine where their own line is that, once the regime crosses it, they go into "fuck this we're changing it" mode. Crossing the Rubicon type stuff. It's important to make that red line ahead of time because otherwise you can get lulled into inaction since they do things just a little worse and worse so you're the boiling frog. There's a "They Thought They Were Free" quote about this, where they descended into genocide little by little, causing no one to push back.
You'll be arrested, and even if you get out I doubt you'll ever feel safe again since the current regime is vindictive.
Or shot.
The past week has shown them that the federal government will defend their claims of "self defence" using flimsy video evidence that shows the contrary. Just imagine how emboldened one of them would be in using disproportionately lethal force against an actual threat instead of a perceived one.
I'm not planning on doing that anytime soon, but I'd like to see what happens when someone does it in a larger group, for science.