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

rjs330 · 2026-01-22T14:56:22-0600

Yarddog said:
That is why cooperation between departments is necessary.

Now THIS I agree with. The Minneapolis Police SHOULD be very active and present when these lunatics are harassing, obstructing and interfering with ICE. Had they been there ICE wouldn't have to be the ones to be contacting these people. The MPD could handle it.

This is what I prefer. They don't have to help ICE arrest the illegals, they should just be there to make sure the nuts are leaving ICE alone to do their job.

BPPLEE · 2026-01-22T14:57:38-0600

rjs330 said:
Now THIS I agree with. The Minneapolis Police SHOULD be very active and present when these lunatics are harassing, obstructing and interfering with ICE. Had they been there ICE wouldn't have to be the ones to be contacting these people. The MPD could handle it.

This is what I prefer. They don't have to help ICE arrest the illegals, they should just be there to make sure the nuts are leaving ICE alone to do their job.

In a perfect world that's how it would work

rjs330 · 2026-01-22T15:01:01-0600

Vanellus said:
Are people shot in the head for illegal parking where you live?

Not where I live. It also did not happen to Good either.

Yarddog · 2026-01-22T17:09:35-0600

rjs330 said:
Did you think thats what I was talking about?

You didn't make it clear just what you meant, sorry if I assumed you were referring to that day.

stevevw · 2026-01-22T20:39:17-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
You used quotes. You don't have to put your own interpretations in quotes.

Then how do I destinguish my summarised quote from the rest of what is said. Perhaps put it in brackets.

Stopped_lurking said:
Yes, and at the same time using quotes.

Ok I understand now.

Stopped_lurking said:
But I didn't use quotes.

OK I can't remember.

Stopped_lurking said:
It could mean that they expected ICE to come and visit them later.

But see heres the problem. You object that I put my version of what it could mean. While happily providing your version as a possibility. Do you agree that it could also mean that they were going to meet again in another encounter with ICE while protesting.

A few things cause some I guess to believe it was not the first time. How they seemed good at it. First timers usually sit on the sidelines and don't become the center of the protest. But its possible they do.

They were associated with a group that went out regulary to protest. But I agree this does not necessarily mean they had protested before.

Nevertheless its the level of their proest and not necessarily the quantity of times they protested.

Stopped_lurking said:
Where did I say that?

Sorry I am asking you. I forgot the ?

Stopped_lurking said:
So you write your own posts because you are presenting tendentious interpretations and because you use bad quotes?

The bad quotes part is correct. I am bad at grammar and that has been pointed out to me several times.

But I disagree with the "tendentious interpretation" part. This is no more biased than your interpretation that "later" meant ICE officers visiting them later at home. This was said nowhere and is reading an interpretation into it. The same as myself or others who come up with a different interpretation.

Yes there can be political bias involved. Thats why its important that more info comes out to determine the truth. But its silly in a way like all these situations where everyone is playing armchair lawyers and court rooms. I am guilty myself. But I cannot help it like most being it represents a controversial social issue of our times. .

Nevertheless I have some basis for my interpretation. Whereas I don't think the alternative interpretation has. Still its an interpretation based on limited info.

Stopped_lurking said:
Perhaps they say it so that ICE knows that the plates match the owner records? Perhaps they are prepared that their actions can lead to follow-up visits?

Perhaps. But then I think that would have been specified. (hey officer these are registered plates and they will be the same everyday).

Its also a reasonable interpretation to say that the reference to later was because their plates had or were going to be looked at more than once. Each time they encountered ICE officers.

But once again its still limited info so no one can clearly say. It only reinforces that there is a limit at present as to even argueing this situation. Its all useless until more evidence comes out and even then people will disagree.

Stopped_lurking said:
Where did I say they were arrested?

You claim that "later" was Rebecca referring to ICE officers coming around later to see them at their home ect. They would only do that if they were in trouble or the officers wanted to speak to them about a possible illegal matter relating to their protests.

But at the stage Rebecca said "later" they were not being arrested. They gave several request for them to go and move on. It was not until Rebecca gave that threat or challenge about Ice officers coming at them. That things turned into them being told to get out of the car.

So the idea of Rebecca and Renee being seen later by ICE officers was not even in anyones mind at the time.

Stopped_lurking said:
I said that it can mean that.

Ok fair enough. But then don't start objecting when other people give an alternative interpretation. Thats why I don't think I will engage in this anymore as I think its flogging a dead horse at the moment.

Stopped_lurking said:
But you put it in quotes.

Yeah sorrt my bad. I will avoid using quotes.

Stopped_lurking said:
Of course you can, that is not the problem but a plain reading of what was actually said doesn't support what you said. And quotes should actually quote what was said, you can't change the quotes themselves to fit your narrative.

Yeah I will work on the exact quotes or a summary of the exact quote without. But I disagree that the plain reading says what you claim it means.

You just said it might mean the officers were coming to see them later. The plain reading does not say or mean anything like this. It could mean what others have said as well. Because theres nothing in the plain reading that tells us anything.

Stopped_lurking said:
Did I change any quotes?

I am not talking about what was said but the interpretation of what was said. You are literally taking what was said and then putting your interpretation on as though that is what the plain reading meant. Then using that to object and defeat other interpretations.

You literally did this now when you claim that the plain reading of Rebeccas words does not match my or other peoples interpretation. Your claiming a truth in what she meant with your take on this. When there is nothing in those words which supports your claim as well.

Stopped_lurking said:
Still not evidenced by the wife's statements.

How do you know. You just admitted there is nothing in those words to know what she meant. At this point all possible interpretations are on the table.

Stopped_lurking said:
I disagree that it is a reasonable assumption. If the statements as easily can support another hypothesis then they are not evidence for any hypothesis.

But there is no basis for their encounter being the first time either. What is the hypothesis.

Yet there is for them doing this more than once. They belonged to a political activist group whose aim was to disrupt ICE in the local area in the name of safety and Rights. At least thats logic and stats will show that most people do engage more than once.

Stopped_lurking said:
Here is an example. Your quote of her is nowhere close to what she actually said, and your interpretation is a better fit with your changes than what she actually said. It reads disingenuously.

It was not meant to be her exact words but match the interpretation. Reading into it what she meant and then putting it in more plain words.

Like your example that Rebecca may have meant "later" as in coming to see them later at home. In this case you would read into it the plain words of what you thought she meant ie

(don't worry the plates will be the same when you come around to out place later). Same thing.

But I get the quotation thing now.

Stopped_lurking said:
Why use quotes at all if you are changing what was said to suit your narrative?

Yes I know now, sorry. It was just how I thought this should be done grammatically.

stevevw · 2026-01-22T20:52:16-0600

Hans Blaster said:
You just quoted my response [first line]. That is my answer.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying you tell them to "shut up".

Hans Blaster · 2026-01-22T21:04:33-0600

stevevw said:
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying you tell them to "shut up".

You.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-01-22T23:29:18-0600

stevevw said:
Then how do I destinguish my summarised quote from the rest of what is said. Perhaps put it in brackets.

Ok I understand now.

OK I can't remember.

But see heres the problem. You object that I put my version of what it could mean. While happily providing your version as a possibility. Do you agree that it could also mean that they were going to meet again in another encounter with ICE while protesting.

A few things cause some I guess to believe it was not the first time. How they seemed good at it. First timers usually sit on the sidelines and don't become the center of the protest. But its possible they do.

They were associated with a group that went out regulary to protest. But I agree this does not necessarily mean they had protested before.

Nevertheless its the level of their proest and not necessarily the quantity of times they protested.

Sorry I am asking you. I forgot the ?

The bad quotes part is correct. I am bad at grammar and that has been pointed out to me several times.

But I disagree with the "tendentious interpretation" part. This is no more biased than your interpretation that "later" meant ICE officers visiting them later at home. This was said nowhere and is reading an interpretation into it. The same as myself or others who come up with a different interpretation.

Yes there can be political bias involved. Thats why its important that more info comes out to determine the truth. But its silly in a way like all these situations where everyone is playing armchair lawyers and court rooms. I am guilty myself. But I cannot help it like most being it represents a controversial social issue of our times. .

Nevertheless I have some basis for my interpretation. Whereas I don't think the alternative interpretation has. Still its an interpretation based on limited info.

Perhaps. But then I think that would have been specified. (hey officer these are registered plates and they will be the same everyday).

Its also a reasonable interpretation to say that the reference to later was because their plates had or were going to be looked at more than once. Each time they encountered ICE officers.

But once again its still limited info so no one can clearly say. It only reinforces that there is a limit at present as to even argueing this situation. Its all useless until more evidence comes out and even then people will disagree.

You claim that "later" was Rebecca referring to ICE officers coming around later to see them at their home ect. They would only do that if they were in trouble or the officers wanted to speak to them about a possible illegal matter relating to their protests.

But at the stage Rebecca said "later" they were not being arrested. They gave several request for them to go and move on. It was not until Rebecca gave that threat or challenge about Ice officers coming at them. That things turned into them being told to get out of the car.

So the idea of Rebecca and Renee being seen later by ICE officers was not even in anyones mind at the time.

Ok fair enough. But then don't start objecting when other people give an alternative interpretation. Thats why I don't think I will engage in this anymore as I think its flogging a dead horse at the moment.

Yeah sorrt my bad. I will avoid using quotes.

Yeah I will work on the exact quotes or a summary of the exact quote without. But I disagree that the plain reading says what you claim it means.

You just said it might mean the officers were coming to see them later. The plain reading does not say or mean anything like this. It could mean what others have said as well. Because theres nothing in the plain reading that tells us anything.

I am not talking about what was said but the interpretation of what was said. You are literally taking what was said and then putting your interpretation on as though that is what the plain reading meant. Then using that to object and defeat other interpretations.

You literally did this now when you claim that the plain reading of Rebeccas words does not match my or other peoples interpretation. Your claiming a truth in what she meant with your take on this. When there is nothing in those words which supports your claim as well.

How do you know. You just admitted there is nothing in those words to know what she meant. At this point all possible interpretations are on the table.

But there is no basis for their encounter being the first time either. What is the hypothesis.

Yet there is for them doing this more than once. They belonged to a political activist group whose aim was to disrupt ICE in the local area in the name of safety and Rights. At least thats logic and stats will show that most people do engage more than once.

It was not meant to be her exact words but match the interpretation. Reading into it what she meant and then putting it in more plain words.

Like your example that Rebecca may have meant "later" as in coming to see them later at home. In this case you would read into it the plain words of what you thought she meant ie

(don't worry the plates will be the same when you come around to out place later). Same thing.

But I get the quotation thing now.

Yes I know now, sorry. It was just how I thought this should be done grammatically.

This is the Guardian's quote (which matches my transcript, slightly different from the India times). Renee Nicole Good said ‘I’m not mad at you’ before ICE agent shot her, video shows

“We don’t change our plates every morning, just so you know. It will be the same plate when you come talk to us later.”

Please note that Rebecca Good implies that it is ICE (or that officer in particular) that will come and talk to them, there is nothing in the text itself that implies Renee and Rebecca were planning to go to ICE. So your interpretation is not supported by the wife's statements at all. You have to either change the quote or leave things out to make as if they will seek out ICE.

MrMoe · 2026-01-23T01:14:27-0600

Yarddog said:
You haven't given any evidence of that. All videos show her only blocking one lane and waving any vehicles to pass by.

Ice officers that were there say she was obstructing their operation.

Yarddog said:
The ICE operation affected traffic far more than Good's vehicle.

Their vehicles weren’t parked illegally like Renee Good’s was. Also you weren’t there so you there’s no way you could know that.

Yarddog said:
Most videos only show the worst police interactions instead of the norm. I have close relatives, close friends, and neighbors that are career police officers. I asked them what the proper way that a trained police officer would have handled themselves in this matter.

But it does happen. This was one of those one of those instances.

Yarddog said:
I have in videos but I've never seen one do that during a traffic stop. The videos that I've seen of bad stops usually show that that the officer has numerous violations on their record.

The videos that I've seen of bad stops don’t show the officer had any violations on their record.

Yarddog said:
No. That usually means that something else had occurred that made police feel that the occupants were dangerous.

Which could have happened in this instance since we only have video of what happed minutes before the shooting.

Yarddog said:
Deescalation means to approach the vehicle and speaking in a calm unthreatening manner. Police would approach the vehicle to see why it was blocking the lane. If the driver appeared to be okay, they would be asked to pull the vehicle over to one side so the investigation could safely continue.

I neither heard or saw anything threatening manner from the officers. What I heard was stern commands to get out of the car which police officers also do.

Yarddog said:
There are several reasons why occupants may be asked to get out of the vehicle but usually the officer needs to communicate with the driver to see if that is needed.

Usually? Meaning not always?

Yarddog said:
That is true but that doesn't mean they were correct.
Evidence needs to be presented before a judge, who can make that decision.

Same logic applies to you.

Yarddog said:
That's fine. I won't take their word since they were caught lying.

What were they lying about?

Yarddog said:
Spoken like a very biased individual. Facts show two entirely different situations.

Both women were protesting but Good was very peaceful and spoke nicely to ICE agents.

Again, irrelevant information. Seriel killers have been known very nice to their victims.
But since you insist I’ll point out her partner was not very nice and was mocking the officers.

Yarddog said:
Babbitt was part of a violent riot where rioters beat police officers.

Guilt by association fallacy.

Yarddog said:
Good's only violation was partially blocking a lane of traffic.

And Babbitt’s only violation was entering a building illegally.

Yarddog said:
Babbitt trespassed on Federal property in an attempt to overthrow a fair election.

No proof that that was her motive.

Yarddog said:
She and other rioters were using objects to violently breakout windows in a door that police had barricaded to protect Congress. After breaking out one window, Babbitt attempted to climb through that space too gain access where she was banned.

And Good violently hit an officer with her car when she was ordered to get out of her vehicle.

Yarddog said:
Good was shot because an officer thought she was driving at at and tried to protect himself.

Which would mean he was justified because he thought he was in danger.

Yarddog said:
Babbitt was shot because an officer trained to protect Congress did his job and protected Congress from a violent person.

And good was shot because the officer thought his life was in danger.

Yarddog said:
Because you did.

I didn’t bring up that fact that she was filming and protesting ICE. You did. Why?

Yarddog said:
Maybe but no evidence has been presented that shows her obstructing ICE operations. Video does show her partially blocking the street, about a hundred yards away.

That’s why you should wait until the investigation is over before making definitive statements.

Yarddog said:
Because unlawful orders have no basis in law and civilians are only required to obey lawful orders.

How do you know it was an unlawful order?

stevevw · 2026-01-23T01:19:57-0600

Hans Blaster said:
You.

So your saying I am lying and I should shut up ?.

stevevw · 2026-01-23T01:27:38-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
This is the Guardian's quote (which matches my transcript, slightly different from the India times). Renee Nicole Good said ‘I’m not mad at you’ before ICE agent shot her, video shows

“We don’t change our plates every morning, just so you know. It will be the same plate when you come talk to us later.”

Please note that Rebecca Good implies that it is ICE (or that officer in particular) that will come and talk to them, there is nothing in the text itself that implies Renee and Rebecca were planning to go to ICE. So your interpretation is not supported by the wife's statements at all. You have to either change the quote or leave things out to make as if they will seek out ICE.

What was she referring to when she said "It will be the same plate when you come talk to us later.” What made Rebecca think that the ICE officers were coming to talk to them later. Or that they would encounter the ICE officers later.

They were not in trouble as far as being charged with anything that the officers needed to come and see them later.

Perhaps it was after luch. I think Rebecca said for them to go and have some lunch "big boy". So maybe she was referring to later that day after lunch and that they would still be there and were not going away.

Anyway hopefully more will come out.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-01-23T01:35:18-0600

stevevw said:
What was she referring to when she said "It will be the same plate when you come talk to us later.” What made Rebecca think that the ICE officers were coming to talk to them later. Or that they would encounter the ICE officers later.

They were not in trouble as far as being charged with anything that the officers needed to come and see them later.

My guess is she thought that they had made themselves a big enough nuisance to get a visit at a later date. They might be hit with an obstruction charge or something else. But this is me speculating, however from the text itself it is clear that Rebecca thought ICE would be the ones coming to talk to them later. Not the other way around. You have to concoct an overarching story to get your narrative to even be possible (whilst going against a plain reading of the text), as you do below.

stevevw said:
Perhaps it was after luch. I think Rebecca said for them to go and have some lunch "big boy". So maybe she was referring to later that day after lunch and that they would still be there and were not going away.

Why would you assume that? There is nothing in the text itself that supports that at all.

stevevw said:
Anyway hopefully more will come out.

MrMoe · 2026-01-23T01:37:57-0600

Vanellus said:
Wrong. If you watch the video taken from the rear Renee Good (she has a name) backs up her car after this point. I was correcting your false statement.

Exactly. She backed up. Meaning at one point the was over the centre line which is the middle of the road, just like the video shows.

Vanellus said:
A traffic offence does not justify cold blooded murder.

No court has reached any verdict yet, so there no way you could know that.

Vanellus said:
The position of Good's car when approached by ICE agents is what is relevant.

Also before that too.

Vanellus said:
No cars were blocked from driving down the road.

Doesn’t matter, it’s still a violation to park on the road the way she did.

Vanellus said:
I was correcting your false statement about multiple horns sounding

Again you’re arguing a moot point. The fact that there is even one car honking their horn multiple times shows there .

Vanellus said:
That that is where the horn is sounding about something else.

How do you know it was sounding at something else?

Vanellus said:
So it's ok for ICE to go around shooting people then since police good practice doesn't apply to them.

Non sequitur. I never said it was okay for ICE to go around shooting people, but in some cases it is justified. We’ll see what the investigation concludes.

Vanellus said:
Good had also been told to drive away.

Something could have happened in between the time she was told that and when the order changed to her being told to get out of the car. She was told multiple times to get out of the car so it is obvious that she should have complied with the current command. So you can’t use this an as excuse for her driving away.

Vanellus said:
She hadn't committed any immigration offences.

I never claimed that. She did commit a traffic offence and possibly other offences we haven’t seen.

Vanellus said:
They tried to violently open Good's car door. Her side window was open so they could speak to her. It looked like they intended to drag her out of her car.

Strange, I saw the officer calmly reach for the door. I so no violence in his actions at all.

It may have looked that way to you but that doesn’t prove that is what they wanted to do.

Vanellus said:
This is invention by you based on nothing.

Adrenaline isn’t my invention, it’s a real chemical in the body that can make people appear fine for a while after being injured.

stevevw · 2026-01-23T03:09:00-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
My guess is she thought that they had made themselves a big enough nuisance to get a visit at a later date. They might be hit with an obstruction charge or something else. But this is me speculating, however from the text itself it is clear that Rebecca thought ICE would be the ones coming to talk to them later. Not the other way around. You have to concoct an overarching story to get your narrative to even be possible (whilst going against a plain reading of the text), as you do below.

Why is my spectulating a concoction and yours is not.

Why can't it also be reasonable to think that Rebecca could still think the ICE were coming to them later. Except not at home but while protesting later.

Stopped_lurking said:
Why would you assume that? There is nothing in the text itself that supports that at all.

There is also nothing in the text that suggests she meant the ICE officers were going to visit them because they were in trouble or would be charged.

They were already breaching the law and were not being charged. The officers were overlooking any charges and have done this often. So if you can assume your interpretation then others can likewise assume theirs. Neither have any text that supports them.\

If anything I think there is some support that "later" meant after lunch. After Rebecca says their plates will be the same when they see them later. She then says From your link
“You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy.

I assume she is telling them to go away and leave them alone at the time. Go away and come back later. Cool down big boy and take time out.

But as we keep saying this is spectulating which is now reaching a point where it is not worth discussing anymore until more info comes out. Its just going to be one interpretation or another.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-01-23T03:38:15-0600

stevevw said:
Why is my spectulating a concoction and yours is not.

Because my interpretation is supported by the plain text. That she thought ICE would come and talk to them later. I'm perfectly fine with any place or any time where ICE comes and talk to them, not them going to talk with ICE. This belies that they planned to seek out ICE later.

stevevw said:
Why can't it also be reasonable to think that Rebecca could still think the ICE were coming to them later. Except not at home but while protesting later.

Because that is an extra assumption, that they will be protesting later. She could have meant at home or at work or even at another protest.

stevevw said:
There is also nothing in the text that suggests she meant the ICE officers were going to visit them because they were in trouble or would be charged.

My interpretation does not rely on more than it is ICE coming to them to talk later instead of them coming to ICE.

stevevw said:
They were already breaching the law and were not being charged. The officers were overlooking any charges and have done this often. So if you can assume your interpretation then others can likewise assume theirs. Neither have any text that supports them.\

Perhaps charges can be brought after the fact, perhaps she suspected that they would get a stern talking-to? Remember how this started, you were making claims not I. You presented your interpretation as true already in post #185. You tried to support it with some questionable quoting. I questioned that.

stevevw said:
Nor were a number of of factors that did not come out at first and came out later. Some very important. Like the words from Renees partner. Like that the couple were agitating officers earlier and planned to do the same later that day.

This is not supported by a plain reading of the text. There is nothing in the text talking about earlier or later actions from Renee and her wife.

stevevw said:
If anything I think there is some support that "later" meant after lunch. After Rebecca says their plates will be the same when they see them later. She then says From your link
“You want to come at us? You want to come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy.

How does this imply that they will see them after lunch at all? There is nothing in those word that says they will see them after lunch.

stevevw said:
I assume she is telling them to go away and leave them alone at the time. Go away and come back later. Cool down big boy and take time out.

Why? There is no statement of intent that they will see them after lunch in that text. It does not imply that they will be there after an eventual lunch.

stevevw said:
But as we keep saying this is spectulating which is now reaching a point where it is not worth discussing anymore until more info comes out. Its just going to be one interpretation or another.

As I said, you tried to present it as much more than your interpretation initially, you presented it as if it was true.

stevevw · 2026-01-23T05:35:16-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Because my interpretation is supported by the plain text. That she thought ICE would come and talk to them later. I'm perfectly fine with any place or any time where ICE comes and talk to them, not them going to talk with ICE. This belies that they planned to seek out ICE later.

Because that is an extra assumption, that they will be protesting later. She could have meant at home or at work or even at another protest.

My interpretation does not rely on more than it is ICE coming to them to talk later instead of them coming to ICE.

Perhaps charges can be brought after the fact, perhaps she suspected that they would get a stern talking-to? Remember how this started, you were making claims not I. You presented your interpretation as true already in post #185. You tried to support it with some questionable quoting. I questioned that.

This is not supported by a plain reading of the text. There is nothing in the text talking about earlier or later actions from Renee and her wife.

How does this imply that they will see them after lunch at all? There is nothing in those word that says they will see them after lunch.

Why? There is no statement of intent that they will see them after lunch in that text. It does not imply that they will be there after an eventual lunch.

As I said, you tried to present it as much more than your interpretation initially, you presented it as if it was true.

Like I said I don't think theres anything else we can say. Its going back and forth with spectulation. We will have to wait for more info.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-01-23T05:45:25-0600

stevevw said:
Like I said I don't think theres anything else we can say. Its going back and forth with spectulation. We will have to wait for more info.

Ok, I think I have showed that your initial statement in post #185 wasn't supported by the facts at hand when you made it. If anyone has read our exchange they will come to their own conclusion.

Kokavkrystallos · 2026-01-23T05:57:45-0600

GoldenBoy89 said:
Nobody was trying to run him over. If she was she had ample opportunity when he was more directly in front of the car. Does every person almost hit by a car have the same right to shoot the driver?

If you watch the video, she is looking to the side at the other ICE officer, when he is directly in front. Then she looks directly at him while that other woman yells "drive " and she hits the gas while he's still in front.
That said, this is my take on the whole situation, compiled over a few days:

Praying in accordance with God's will here.
I had to think and pray about this overnight rather than just post regarding the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis. It's sad all the way around on many levels. Sometimes I can be a John the Baptist, and I've posted the following where Woke anti Christians have been screaming:
"Her "wife." There is no such thing as a woman having a wife. Nor a man having a husband. It is sin, and an abomination.
The wages of sin is death.
Sad those kids lost their mother, but what kind of example to a little child is a woman engaged in a lustful ungodly relationship?
It is hellish! Woe unto those who offend a little child.
God is our Creator, and made the way wherein we should walk, and live. Man chooses to live contrary. You reap what you sow.
Im not saying the shooting was justified. I dont know. Everything happens so quickly. (I've had military training and other kinds of training, and can tell you, things can happen so fast, your reaction time is like 0, and from your perception it may be life or death. I've seen the front view video. The ICE agent was struck by her vehicle, however, in my opinion he shouldn't have placed himself in a vulnerable position so close, but gone wide, and cleared himself from the potential path.)
But living in sin makes you vulnerable to an untimely demise.
"Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time." - Ecclesiastes 7:17
Prayers for all involved.
And praying that people repent, and turn to the LORD Jesus Christ for forgiveness and salvation, confessing your sins, and forsaking all wickedness.
There is no other way to be saved and inherit eternal life.
And if Renee wasnt doing something that warranted the shooting, it just shows how quickly things can happen, and then you are facing the judgment of an Almighty and holy God.
And she certainly wasn't completely innocent! (She was parked across a roadway, did not comply with an order, and argued with officers, placing herself in danger. People need to realize that engaging in any way in a public protest makes you vulnerable to danger, either from the law enforcement, or from fellow protesters)

Turn to Jesus, for today is the day of salvation.
--------
I'm also going to share this from Hosea 10:10-14, which speaks to such situations:
"It is in my desire that I should chastise them; and the people shall be gathered against them, when they shall bind themselves in their two furrows.
And Ephraim is as an heifer that is taught, and loveth to tread out the corn; but I passed over upon her fair neck: I will make Ephraim to ride; Judah shall plow, and Jacob shall break his clods.
Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you.
Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.
Therefore shall a tumult arise among thy people, and all thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Betharbel in the day of battle: the mother was dashed in pieces upon her children."

People plow wickedness, then justify wickedness, believing lies, trusting in themselves, and a tumult arises among the people. People get hurt, and sometimes killed in such situations. It's truly sad, but we live in a fallen world.

I share the following 2 scriptures often, especially regarding war and violence.
"Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. " - Hebrews 12:14
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. " - Matthew 5:9

Pray for those cities, as they were ground zero in 2020 also. Pray for all leaders, and the nation. Pray for the children especially.
"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, THY WILL BE DONE, on earth as it is in heaven."
---------

Having learned more about Renee Good, it appears she was a professing Christian, who had gone to youth camps, and even missionary trips to Ireland when she was younger.
Her x husband described her a devoted Christian.
The woman she was in an unlawful union with, who wrongfully uses the title of "her wife" says this:
"Renee lived by the belief that "there is kindness in the world and we need to do everything we can to find it where it resides and nurture it where it needs to grow," Becca wrote, pointing to her late wife's Christian beliefs, which she said taught the "truth" that "we are here to love each other, care for each other, and keep each other safe and whole."

Sadly, these are progressive Christian beliefs, not Bible. The first part is opposite of what our calling is. There is SIN in the world, and Jesus came to seek and to save that which is lost. Jesus said "love thy neighbor as yourself, " implying that YOU bring kindness to others.
While the gospel does call us to love one another, it also teaches the ugliness of sin, and to avoid sinful practices. Same sex intimacy is sinful. No wiggle room. Man and woman are to be married. ANYTHING outside that is sin . And teaching a 6 year old child that's OK by your example, and your words, under the guise of "love " is wicked and offensive.

People like to point out John 8, that Jesus said, "he that is without sin among you, cast the first stone. " But don't stop there, because after Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery, "neither do I condemn you," He then says, "GO, AND SIN NO MORE."
And that's also a situation, where if the woman was caught in the very act (John 8:4), where is the man? They only accused one party in a 2 party sin. The Pharisees obviously knew something they weren't saying, and Jesus was having none of their nonsense.
But at the end of all this, "Go and sin no more."

Now I've wondered and prayed in this situation, and conclude, either Renee Good never really knew Christ, followed another gospel, and another Jesus, was accursed, and went to hell. (Galatians 1:6-9, Matthew 7:21-23). That's a possibility.

But there is also THIS possibility, which I really hope is the case. That she was saved. She was called and chosen. She was in marriages to men, and had children. I don't know the circumstances of her divorce from her first husband, but her last husband died.
Then she went and joined herself with a woman in an unlawful union. I know it was ruled legal by US courts in 2015, but it is unlawful in God's sight. And we ought to obey God rather than man.

So in this scenario God gave her a couple years to repent, but instead she continued in a sinful relationship, and became an agitator in public. God said enough, and took her home.
Acts 5. Ananias & Sapphira died on the spot when they lied. And 1 Corinthians 11:29-32 speaks of believers who were sick, and some who even died, because the took the Lord's Supper unworthily.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world."

Finally, 1 Corinthians 3:13-17,
"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are."

rjs330 · 2026-01-23T08:57:02-0600

stevevw said:
What was she referring to when she said "It will be the same plate when you come talk to us later.” What made Rebecca think that the ICE officers were coming to talk to them later. Or that they would encounter the ICE officers later.

Steve, I think you guys are arguing over minutia here. Neither one of you know what she meant. The exact wording of "you come" indicate she was saying ICE would come to them. We don't what she thought about how or why ICE would come to them. That could have several different meanings.

But honestly it is irrelevant to the reason she was shot.

Yarddog · 2026-01-23T09:58:11-0600

MrMoe said:
Ice officers that were there say she was obstructing their operation.

She was there as a protester and SCOTUS has affirmed that protesting and filming is protected by the Constitution. She was about a hundred yards away from the ICE operation which is well outside any limits that courts have allowed. Which means that she wasn't obstructing ICE.

She was annoying ICE agents. Nothing illegal about that.

MrMoe said:
Their vehicles weren’t parked illegally like Renee Good’s was. Also you weren’t there so you there’s no way you could know that.

ICE was legally blocking traffic. Good was illegally blocking part of the roadway, which is a traffic violation, only. Also, you have heard of video evidence, haven't you?

MrMoe said:
But it does happen. This was one of those one of those instances.

Yes it does and many of those end with officers losing their jobs or being punished for violating civil rights.

MrMoe said:
The videos that I've seen of bad stops don’t show the officer had any violations on their record.

You're not watching many. I see lots. I also see lots of stupid motorists not understanding their actual rights.

MrMoe said:
Which could have happened in this instance since we only have video of what happed minutes before the shooting.

Yeah, that smiling face saying, "I'm not mad at you" scared those poor ICE agents.

MrMoe said:
I neither heard or saw anything threatening manner from the officers.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. An officer rushing up screaming "Get out of the car" and trying to, illegally, open their door, isn't threatening. LOL

MrMoe said:
What I heard was stern commands to get out of the car which police officers also do.

It is illegal for police to reach into a vehicle, until the driver has been given the chance to obey a lawful order, which had not been established. These cases are usually thrown out of court with all charges dropped because police violated the driver's rights.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

inquisitive

inquisitive

Area Meathead

Well-Known Member

Part-Time Breatharian

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Part-Time Breatharian

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Similar threads