• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

New documents shed light on Renee Good’s ties to ICE monitoring efforts in Minneapolis

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
17,579
4,527
Louisville, Ky
✟1,074,623.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
17,579
4,527
Louisville, Ky
✟1,074,623.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
They were parked on the side of the road parallel to the road which is not blocking the road.
They were blocking one lane of traffic where their operation was taking place. Good's vehicle had no effect on that operation.
I did. There are no vehicles in front or behind her preventing her from moving her car. She did it deliberately.
Correct, she had no effect on the ICE agents to do their duty. She was guilty of a traffic violation and not obstruction.
And if they came to write her a ticket and she did the same thing of hitting the officer while driving off and the officer shot at her, who would you blame then?
Depends. Police wouldn't have approached her screaming at her to get out. Police are trained to deescalate a situation. If police had been yelling conflicting orders, as the ICE agents were, they would had been partially at fault.
They do have the authority under certain circumstances. Look it up.
I have said that but since she wasn't obstructing their operation, they had no authority.
I know. It was a common response to Ashley Babbitt’s killing.
Her situation was totally different than Good's.
So second hand testimony.
No, first hand testimony. Former ICE officials know what their officers are trained in. Judges also know the law and rule on these cases.
Still a law breaker by definition.
Not a criminal law breaker.
Those don’t cancel out her offences.
No one said they did. The only illegal thing that she did was a traffic violation.
Yes. And not following the officer’s orders.
You don't have to obey unlawful orders.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,593
2,066
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟343,267.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
She never said that.
I said something along those lines. I found the exact words now.

Her wife, Rebecca Good, was outside the car and spoke to the ICE agent, saying “We don’t change our plates every morning. It will be the same plate when you talk to us later,”

As I said this suggests that this encounter was not or would not be the only encounter with ICE agents. Afterall they were part of a social group whose aim was to make it hard for ICE agents to do their job. So obviously this was not the only time.

Theres also a video showing her words at the 20 second mark. She also says at the 30 second mark "do you want to come at us" twice and then "go get yourself some lunch big boy". Before the officer then said for Renee to get out of the car. Instead Rebecca tried to get into the car defying the officers.
This one is closer to what she said, but she said when ICE comes and visit them later. I have my transcript and a link to conversation in the following post.

Ah I am understanding what you are on about now. Honestly my reference to Renee partners words were not in relation to you discussion with the other poster. I did not even see this. I just metioned that as one piece of evidence with others that came out later.

Despite that now I have been brought into this particular issue I agree with the other poster. That the confrontation with Renee and her partner was not the first time.

Like I said they belonged to a group whose mission was to make it hard for ICE. Why would you think this was their only encounter.

Renees partner mentions that the "don't change their plates every morning". This suggests that they have encountered ICE officers on other mornings. If it was the first time they had protested then there will be no 'other mornings". So why say it.

She said these will be the same plates when they meet that afternoon. She is telling everyone that they are going to do the same that day. This shows it was not about a one off protest. This was an ongoing agitation and making it hard for law enforcement officers to do their job. Which is a crime in itself.
Where did she say that? Not in the above linked conversation.
Saying that the number plates will be the same every morning suggests they are going out every morning. Shes saying 'don't worry if you see us each morning the number plate will be the same. So you don't have to keep checking it'.

She suggests the same again when she says "they will be the same plates when you come talk to us later".

They are admitting they have done this more than once. They are admitting they will be doing the same later that day.
You are using a lot of quotation marks whilst messing up the quotes.

Where do you get them from?
The actual words from Renee's wife Rebecca Nicole Good. In the transcript and video above.
 
Upvote 0

Stopped_lurking

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
784
359
Kristianstad
✟27,000.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
I said something along those lines. I found the exact words now.

Her wife, Rebecca Good, was outside the car and spoke to the ICE agent, saying “We don’t change our plates every morning. It will be the same plate when you talk to us later,”

As I said this suggests that this encounter was not or would not be the only encounter with ICE agents. Afterall they were part of a social group whose aim was to make it hard for ICE agents to do their job. So obviously this was not the only time.
That is not obvious. Is there any reports of any previous encounters?
Theres also a video showing her words at the 20 second mark. She also says at the 30 second mark "do you want to come at us" twice and then "go get yourself some lunch big boy". Before the officer then said for Renee to get out of the car. Instead Rebecca tried to get into the car defying the officers.

Ah I am understanding what you are on about now. Honestly my reference to Renee partners words were not in relation to you discussion with the other poster. I did not even see this.
Well, you liked his post.

Skärmbild 2026-01-21 133249.png

I just metioned that as one piece of evidence with others that came out later.

Despite that now I have been brought into this particular issue I agree with the other poster. That the confrontation with Renee and her partner was not the first time.

Like I said they belonged to a group whose mission was to make it hard for ICE. Why would you think this was their only encounter.
Why not?
Renees partner mentions that the "don't change their plates every morning". This suggests that they have encountered ICE officers on other mornings. If it was the first time they had protested then there will be no 'other mornings". So why say it.
Because there are clips and reports of ICE changing plates. It is in relation to ICE is changing plates. And that Renee and her wife didn't, in contrast to ICE.


She said these will be the same plates when they meet that afternoon. She is telling everyone that they are going to do the same that day.
That is not what she is saying, she says the plate will be the same when ICE comes and talk to them later. So "She is telling everyone that they are going to do the same that day." is straight up false. Why are you straight up twisting the what she said?
This shows it was not about a one off protest. This was an ongoing agitation and making it hard for law enforcement officers to do their job. Which is a crime in itself.
This is your interpretation based on something she NOT did say.
Saying that the number plates will be the same every morning suggests they are going out every morning. Shes saying 'don't worry if you see us each morning the number plate will be the same. So you don't have to keep checking it'.
Quotation marks around a falsehood? Are you joking? That's not what she said again. What video are you watching?
She suggests the same again when she says "the number plates will be the same when you stop us later that day".
No, when ICE comes and talk to them later them. Not "stop". There is no implication that they will keep doing it the same day.
They are admitting they have done this more than once.
Where?
They are admitting they will be doing the same later that day.
Where? Not, in the video I linked. When ICE comes to talk to them later, implies when ICE seek them out, not the other way around.
The actual words from Renee's wife Rebecca Nicole Good. In the transcript and video above.
Give me the video you working from then, because your commentary doesn't match the video I posted. Don't twist her words.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Area Meathead
Mar 11, 2017
24,152
17,795
56
USA
✟458,453.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
I think you are not getting my point as well. You are using this anonymous and sketchy source to claim that my source is wrong. Who says your source is correct. Most of the so called anonymous sources are proven false.

They are ananymous for the very fact that no one can verify them. A report claims an anonymous sources said this or that. Thats how fake news gets spread.

So here we have a direct sourced that is identified. As opposed to a shady anonymous source and you can't verify whether its actual fact.
You really don't read things carefully, do you? Trace back this interaction.

I've been very explicit in this exchange. The anonymous source I have been speaking of (which is the source of *YOUR* usage of the claim) was an anonymous DHS/ICE source to CBS News that made the "internal bleeding" claim that you repeated.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,593
2,066
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟343,267.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That is not obvious. Is there any reports of any previous encounters?
Only in news reports. Its early days. But they belonged to a group who were organised to actively disrupt ICE. Do you think this was their only time.
Well, you liked his post.

View attachment 375566
Do you mean 'Like' his post. I can't remember if I said something. I know I agreed with him. But that was not related to my point with Hans. I was speaking about how Hans was claiming certain anonymous facts. Questioning why the report of internal bleeding had not come out officially.

I was saying other facts did not come out straight away either. Like the transcript of what Renee and her partner had said. But not just that. I used a couple of examples. It was not specifically about what Renees partner said. Until it was made about that and then I came in on that.

It seems a communication breakdown. I was coming in on someone elses post not fully realising what the discussion was previously about.
Ah because they belonged to a group whose mission it was to make it hard for ICE lol. Its there in the mission of the group. The groups works in a way that whenever ICE agents are identified in the area then group members are notified to then go out and help protect the community.

That would mean every time ICE are in the area group members come out to protest. More than once. Unless you think that a single protest would be enough. They would need to be going to every single case where ICE agents are in the area.
Because there are clips and reports of ICE changing plates. It is in relation to ICE is changing plates. And that Renee and her wife didn't, in contrast to ICE.

Ok so that is new info for me. Which shows I was not following the discussion earlier on this. I should have got up to date with it. Sorry about that.

Nevertheless I don't think this is relevant as to whether Rebecca was revealing that this encounter was not the first time or the last. It doesn't matter if she was referring to ICE agents swapping their number plates.

The important point is Rebecca was inferring that they were going to be out and about that afternoon doing the same. She says 'the plates' will be the same this afternoon when you check them'. Inferring they will meet again that afternoon.
That is not what she is saying, she says the plate will be the same when ICE comes and talk to them later. So "She is telling everyone that they are going to do the same that day." is straight up false. Why are you straight up twisting the what she said?
So what did Rebecca mean when she said 'later' ? Was that later regarding the same incident they were in at the time. Or later as in a seperate encounter later that day they may have. To remind them that each time they see them their plates will always be the same.

What did Rebecca mean when she said "we don't change our plates every morning" ? Why say every morning ?

Anyway all this is irrelevant. They belonged to an organised group whose aim was to be present to stop every ICE agent in their area. Considering that has happened many times. Do you honestly believe this was their only time they went out to protest.
This is your interpretation based on something she NOT did say.
Ok fair enough. Yes its an interpretation like all views are at the moment. There are bits and pieces of info and its hard to piece things together.

All I will say is based on probabilities someone who joins a specific activist group to stop ICE will be actively involved in protesting against ICE when they come into their area.
Quotation marks around a falsehood? Are you joking? That's not what she said again. What video are you watching?
It seems an interpretation others are coming to as well. I agree trying to work out what is going on by certain statements is not enough. There needs to be more evidence. More information. I am sure they would have info on whether there were other occassions.
No, when ICE comes and talk to them later them. Not "stop". There is no implication that they will keep doing it the same day.
But then theres no indication they won't or have not. Its too hard to tell.

So you think this was their first time ?
Based on saying that their plates will always be the same whenever they see them. Why say it otherwise.
Where? Not, in the video I linked. When ICE comes to talk to them later, implies when ICE seek them out, not the other way around.
What do you mean seek them out. At their homes or when they are protesting again.
Give me the video you working from then, because your commentary doesn't match the video I posted. Don't twist her words.
I have but evidently there is more than one interpretation. I was agreeing with the other poster on his interpretation. So its not as if this interpretation is a reasonable interpretation. Two independent people coming to the same interpretation.

But I reserve my judgement. I don't want to base the truth on a short quote. More evidence is needed.

But in the meantime I keep coming back to why its not a reasonable conclusion that activists belonging to a group that aims to stop ICE would not go out more than once. If ICE is often in their area. I think the idea is to keep protesting over and over again and not just once.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,593
2,066
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟343,267.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You really don't read things carefully, do you? Trace back this interaction.

I've been very explicit in this exchange. The anonymous source I have been speaking of (which is the source of *YOUR* usage of the claim) was an anonymous DHS/ICE source to CBS News that made the "internal bleeding" claim that you repeated.
Whatever. The point was about Ross being seen at the hospital. That came directly from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Like I said I have a direct statement for the DHS/ICE Secretary and another from an anonymous source from the same department.

As far as I know a direct claim from the Secretary is not anonymous but an explicit statement to the facts. Who am I to believe.

In fact none of this supports any claim that Ross did not have internal bleeding or that he was not taken to a hospital to be checked. All this is to make out that there was no incident. Ross was not in danger and murdered Good. This is exactly what you have been suggesting all along.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

BPPLEE

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2022
17,319
8,061
62
Montgomery
✟286,461.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Only in news reports. Its early days. But they belonged to a group who were organised to actively disrupt ICE. Do you think this was their only time.

Do you mean 'Like' his post. I can't remember if I said something. I know I agreed with him. But that was not related to my point with Hans. I was speaking about how Hans was claiming certain anonymous facts. Questioning why the report of internal bleeding had not come out officially.

I was saying other facts did not come out straight away either. Like the transcript of what Renee and her partner had said. But not just that. I used a couple of examples. It was not specifically about what Renees partner said. Until it was made about that and then I came in on that.

It seems a communication breakdown. I was coming in on someone elses post not fully realising what the discussion was previously about.

Ah because they belonged to a group whose mission it was to make it hard for ICE lol. Its there in the mission of the group. The groups works in a way that whenever ICE agents are identified in the area then group members are notified to then go out and help protect the community.

That would mean every time ICE are in the area group members come out to protest. More than once. Unless you think that a single protest would be enough. They would need to be going to every single case where ICE agents are in the area.

Ok so that is new info for me. Which shows I was not following the discussion earlier on this. I should have got up to date with it. Sorry about that.

Nevertheless I don't think this is relevant as to whether Rebecca was revealing that this encounter was not the first time or the last. It doesn't matter if she was referring to ICE agents swapping their number plates.

The important point is Rebecca was inferring that they were going to be out and about that afternoon doing the same. She says 'the plates' will be the same this afternoon when you check them'. Inferring they will meet again that afternoon.

So what did Rebecca mean when she said 'later' ? Was that later regarding the same incident they were in at the time. Or later as in a seperate encounter later that day they may have. To remind them that each time they see them their plates will always be the same.

What did Rebecca mean when she said "we don't change our plates every morning" ? Why say every morning ?

Anyway all this is irrelevant. They belonged to an organised group whose aim was to be present to stop every ICE agent in their area. Considering that has happened many times. Do you honestly believe this was their only time they went out to protest.

Ok fair enough. Yes its an interpretation like all views are at the moment. There are bits and pieces of info and its hard to piece things together.

All I will say is based on probabilities someone who joins a specific activist group to stop ICE will be actively involved in protesting against ICE when they come into their area.

It seems an interpretation others are coming to as well. I agree trying to work out what is going on by certain statements is not enough. There needs to be more evidence. More information. I am sure they would have info on whether there were other occassions.

But then theres no indication they won't or have not. Its too hard to tell.

So you think this was their first time ?

Based on saying that their plates will always be the same whenever they see them. Why say it otherwise.

What do you mean seek them out. At their homes or when they are protesting again.

I have but evidently there is more than one interpretation. I was agreeing with the other poster on his interpretation. So its not as if this interpretation is a reasonable interpretation. Two independent people coming to the same interpretation.

But I reserve my judgement. I don't want to base the truth on a short quote. More evidence is needed.

But in the meantime I keep coming back to why its not a reasonable conclusion that activists belonging to a group that aims to stop ICE would not go out more than once. If ICE is often in their area. I think the idea is to keep protesting over and over again and not just once.
I still wonder why Good’s wife has not released her cellphone video.
 
Upvote 0

Stopped_lurking

Well-Known Member
Jan 12, 2004
784
359
Kristianstad
✟27,000.00
Country
Sweden
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Only in news reports. Its early days. But they belonged to a group who were organised to actively disrupt ICE. Do you think this was their only time.

Do you mean 'Like' his post. I can't remember if I said something. I know I agreed with him. But that was not related to my point with Hans. I was speaking about how Hans was claiming certain anonymous facts. Questioning why the report of internal bleeding had not come out officially.

I was saying other facts did not come out straight away either. Like the transcript of what Renee and her partner had said. But not just that. I used a couple of examples. It was not specifically about what Renees partner said. Until it was made about that and then I came in on that.

It seems a communication breakdown. I was coming in on someone elses post not fully realising what the discussion was previously about.

Ah because they belonged to a group whose mission it was to make it hard for ICE lol. Its there in the mission of the group. The groups works in a way that whenever ICE agents are identified in the area then group members are notified to then go out and help protect the community.

That would mean every time ICE are in the area group members come out to protest. More than once. Unless you think that a single protest would be enough. They would need to be going to every single case where ICE agents are in the area.

Ok so that is new info for me. Which shows I was not following the discussion earlier on this. I should have got up to date with it. Sorry about that.

Nevertheless I don't think this is relevant as to whether Rebecca was revealing that this encounter was not the first time or the last. It doesn't matter if she was referring to ICE agents swapping their number plates.

The important point is Rebecca was inferring that they were going to be out and about that afternoon doing the same.
She says 'the plates' will be the same this afternoon when you check them'. Inferring they will meet again that afternoon.
She never said that "they were going to be out and about that afternoon doing the same." She said that plates will be the same when ICE comes to talk with them later. Your statement is not what she said. And you put it in quotes again, why do you put it quotes if you don't plan to actually present quotes? This is tantamount to lying.
So what did Rebecca mean when she said 'later' ?
That ICE would come and visit them perhaps?
Was that later regarding the same incident they were in at the time. Or later as in a seperate encounter later that day they may have. To remind them that each time they see them their plates will always be the same.
How about ICE comes an visit them later as an explanation.
What did Rebecca mean when she said "we don't change our plates every morning" ? Why say every morning ?

Anyway all this is irrelevant. They belonged to an organised group whose aim was to be present to stop every ICE agent in their area. Considering that has happened many times. Do you honestly believe this was their only time they went out to protest.
Yes, I don't believe you have showed that they planned to go out and protest later.
Ok fair enough. Yes its an interpretation like all views are at the moment. There are bits and pieces of info and its hard to piece things together.

All I will say is based on probabilities someone who joins a specific activist group to stop ICE will be actively involved in protesting against ICE when they come into their area.

It seems an interpretation others are coming to as well. I agree trying to work out what is going on by certain statements is not enough. There needs to be more evidence. More information. I am sure they would have info on whether there were other occassions.
So why did you write your statements then?
But then theres no indication they won't or have not. Its too hard to tell.

So you think this was their first time ?
I have no idea, but I haven't said one way or another.
Based on saying that their plates will always be the same whenever they see them. Why say it otherwise.
Because, it makes fun of ICEs changing of plates.
What do you mean seek them out. At their homes or when they are protesting again.
At their homes or work or whatever.
I have but evidently there is more than one interpretation. I was agreeing with the other poster on his interpretation. So its not as if this interpretation is a reasonable interpretation. Two independent people coming to the same interpretation.
Presenting false quotes, that is not a good look, that is tendentious commentary or straight up lies.
But I reserve my judgement. I don't want to base the truth on a short quote. More evidence is needed.
You have already made statements on the evidence you had at hand. You can't now retreat to more evidence is needed
But in the meantime I keep coming back to why its not a reasonable conclusion that activists belonging to a group that aims to stop ICE would not go out more than once. If ICE is often in their area. I think the idea is to keep protesting over and over again and not just once.
You can think that if you want, but it is not evidenced by the wife's statements.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vanellus
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Area Meathead
Mar 11, 2017
24,152
17,795
56
USA
✟458,453.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Whatever.
Your disinterest in the only conversation I have been having with you here is... telling.
The point was about Ross being seen at the hospital. That came directly from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Like I said I have a direct statement for the DHS/ICE Secretary and another from an anonymous source from the same department.
But it didn't. It was anonymous when you made that claim. The anonymous claim came first in one outlet, then another. It is not surprising that the Secretary *confirmed* it when asked at a press conference or something.
As far as I know a direct claim from the Secretary is not anonymous but an explicit statement to the facts. Who am I to believe.
Frankly, HHS Secretary Noem and her spokesperson McWhatever, are prolific prevaricators. Again, the normal way to do this is to put out a press release with quotes from named doctors at the hospital or at a press report (often with the doctors) while the agent recovers in the hospital. Actual "internal bleeding" that is not just a bruise is quite life threatening and serious. Nothing about this claim has indicated they act like it is serious.
In fact none of this supports any claim that Ross did not have internal bleeding or that he was not taken to a hospital to be checked. All this is to make out that there was no incident. Ross was not in danger and murdered Good. This is exactly what you have been suggesting all along.
 
Upvote 0

Vanellus

Newbie
Sep 15, 2014
1,850
656
✟174,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, they were driving around her because she parked her car in the middle of the road, perpendicularly, which is an offence in Minnesota.

It’s clear she was obstructing traffic by all the car horns honking at her, which in turn impeded ICE from working.

The ICE officer who was hit by her car thought so.
Hmm quite a redefinition of the word "middle" - maybe it's an alternative middle.

renee_good1.png

-124-ICE-agent-who-shot-Renee-Good-suffered-internal-bleeding-officials-say-YouTube.png


As you can see Renee Good's car is between the broken line which marks the middle of the road for car traffic and the edge of the road. The car isn't straddling this centre line so it is not in the middle of the road as you falsely asserted. Note that the road is one way. No cars were blocked and so there was no impeding of anyone.

Only one horn is heard honking repeatedly in the twitter video and the movements of the camera seem to indicate more interest in what is happening further up the road in a rightwards direction.

Standard police procedure in Minnesota and elsewhere is that police should not place themselves in front of a vehicle (Ross was at front left by the headlight when Good pulled away) and that in such cases one should step out of the way not shoot the driver. Good had already stated her intention to "pull out" just before the two other ICE agents approached her aggressively. Ross was seen to be walking normally afterwards and drove himself away.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Yarddog
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
27,464
30,431
LA
✟681,928.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Idk why people are still trying to defend Ross’s actions when even Trump can see and point out ICE made a mistake here and that her death was a tragedy.
 
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
29,982
9,651
66
✟464,446.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Mine doesn't. I checked.
Yes it does.
ICE is immigration enforcement not Police. They are not traffic control officers. Their authority is limited to immigration.
They are not local police. They are Federal Law Enforcement. And as such may enforce federal laws, which these lunatics are violating.
Yes, a traffic violation not within ICE's authority. They can't write traffic citations.
No, but they can order her to move as she is blocking the proper lane of traffic for officers to use. And of she refuses they can charge her with obstruction. LE can block traffic in the performance of their duties. Citizens cannot.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
17,579
4,527
Louisville, Ky
✟1,074,623.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Yes it does.
Not for ICE, which I stated. They do for Police but ICE is not Police.
They are not local police.
yep
They are Federal Law Enforcement.
No, they are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. As their web site says: "Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration."

And as such may enforce federal laws, which these lunatics are violating.
That depends on which laws Trump is violating. That lunatic will lie about anything.
No, but they can order her to move as she is blocking the proper lane of traffic for officers to use.
All pictures show that there was plenty of room for agents to pass by on either side of her vehicle. You can order her to move her car but that is not a lawful order because you do not have the authority to act as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police dept. and neither does ICE.
And of she refuses they can charge her with obstruction.
She can be charged but that doesn't make it a lawful charge. Most likely that would be thrown out by the judge at her hearing.
LE can block traffic in the performance of their duties.
Yes. ICE was blocking traffic about a hundred yards away from where Good was located. That was legal.
Citizens cannot.
That depends on why a citizen may block traffic. Citizens can block traffic in emergency circumstances, such as traffic accidents ahead of them.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: DaisyDay
Upvote 0

RileyG

Veteran
Christian Forums Staff
Red Team - Moderator
Angels Team
Site Supporter
Feb 10, 2013
39,862
22,658
30
Nebraska
✟930,579.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
17,579
4,527
Louisville, Ky
✟1,074,623.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Limited yes. But for what is going on, sufficient. Limited to Federal laws, which these people are breaking.
Traffic laws are not Federal laws. Traffic laws are state or local law enforcement issues.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Vanellus
Upvote 0

rjs330

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2015
29,982
9,651
66
✟464,446.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Pentecostal
Not for ICE, which I stated. They do for Police but ICE is not Police.
Yes they do. Even for ICE. These laws allow ALL LE to be able to do that. The laws do not list every possible LE agency.
No, they are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. As their web site says: "Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration."
As I pointed out they can also enforce other Federal Laws. Including obstruction types of laws. You are just incorrect.
All pictures show that there was plenty of room for agents to pass by on either side of her vehicle. You can order her to move her car but that is not a lawful order because you do not have the authority to act as an Officer of the Minneapolis Police dept. and neither does ICE.
She was blocking the proper lane of traffic. Forcing officers to have to go around you is Obstruction. Yes you can order her to move her car. They have authority to do so.
She can be charged but that doesn't make it a lawful charge. Most likely that would be thrown out by the judge at her hearing.

Well a court does have the final say. You have no idea what the ruling would be.
That depends on why a citizen may block traffic. Citizens can block traffic in emergency circumstances, such as traffic accidents ahead of them.
Which wasn't the case here yes?
 
Upvote 0