Davisite logo
Davisite Banner. Left side the bicycle obelisk at 3rd and University. Right side the trellis at the entrance to the Arboretum.

<

>

Tomorrow: ICE Protests in Davis and Woodland Alongside National Events

Hosted by Indivisible Yolo

(From press release)

WHEN/WHERE:
TOMORROW: Saturday, Jan. 10
• 11:30am-1:00pm: Heritage Plaza, 710 Main Street, Woodland
• 1:00-2:00pm: Davis Central Park, 401 C Street, Davis

WHAT:
Residents from across Yolo County will gather in Woodland and Davis for ICE Out For Good protests against ICE and the recent murder of Renee Good in Minneapolis along with all lives lost to ICE violence. The events will take place alongside protests across the country and will include protest signs, speakers and more.

On Wednesday, Renee Good, an American citizen, was killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis, Minnesota. This killing is part of a broader pattern of unchecked violence, impunity and abuse carried out by federal immigration enforcement agencies against members of our communities. Indivisible Yolo is joining a coalition of groups across the country for a coordinated Ice Out For Good Weekend of Action to demand accountability, honor the life lost and make visible the human cost of ICE’s actions.

Indivisible Yolo is the local chapter of the nationwide grassroots movement Indivisible. Indivisible Yolo’s mission is to promote progressive policies by activating people to engage in their democracy at all levels of government. The group organizes and advocates for policy goals and to get out the vote to elect candidates who pursue those policies. These complementary efforts ensure democracy works for everyone and that those in power do, too. For more information, visit www.indivisibleyolo.org.

Posted by

davisite2

on

in

, , ,
Davisite logo

Did you enjoy reading this article? Then subscribe to the Davisite for free and never miss a post again.

Comments

30 responses to “Tomorrow: ICE Protests in Davis and Woodland Alongside National Events”

  1. ->KeiTh

    I suggest all protesters view the latest video showing that Renee Good and her partner were out looking for a confrontation. They weren’t just innocent bystanders who happened to drive into an ICE operation. They were purposely trying to impede ICE and put themselves square in the middle of a dangerous situation. In the video you can also hear Good’s car striking the ICE officer.

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      Yes, I saw the video. Renee Good says in a calm and friendly voice, “That’s fine dude, I’m not mad at you.”
      And then, with his body well outside the car as it turns away from him, Jonathan Ross shoots her at point blank range as the car continues to move away. Then, after he has shot her dead, Ross says, “Fuckin’ bitch.” All the hostility and anger came from him, to the point where he murdered her in cold blood. They were there to support their neighbors, yes — that has been clear from the beginning — but nothing they did justified Ross’s actions. Not even close. The police doesn’t have the authority to shoot citizens who say things they don’t like, and neither does ICE.

      Reply
      1. ->KeiTh

        I see you left out the part of Renee’s wife Rebecca Good saying to the officer:

        “Do you want to come at us?”
        “Do you want to come at us?”
        “Go get yourself some lunch, big boy.”

        They wanted a confrontation, they escalated it and a horrible tragedy occurred because of their own actions.

      2. Roberta Millstein

        Sorry, because Renee’s wife taunted the ICE officer, he was justified in killing Renee?? That is outrageous. That’s government sponsored killing against speech someone doesn’t like — sorry, no, government sponsored killing of someone merely associated with someone’s speech an immigration officer doesn’t like. What you are saying makes it worse, not better. It’s the action of the worst kind of violent, authoritarian government. He needs to be put on trial for his actions. Instead the federal government is refusing to share information with the state of Minnesota, as would be the normal practice in a situation like this. They are trying to revise history. More authoritarianism, straight out of Orwell’s 1984.

      3. Ron O

        Law enforcement does indeed have the authority to shoot and kill a driver attempting to flee if they are endangered. From every video I’ve seen, Ms. Good purposefully disregarded orders (not “suggestions”) to exit the vehicle, and was attempting to flee.

        Authorities are also not supposed to stand in front of the vehicle (for this very reason). I don’t know if the agent was moving across the vehicle’s path at the time. Of course, the result wasn’t very “safe” for anyone else, since the vehicle then travelled down the street at high speed with a dead woman behind the wheel.

        There is no evidence that Ms. Good was attempting to strike the agent. I’m not sure if the car made contact with him.

        There was clearly a lot of anger from Renee’s wife, but it’s ultimately irrelevant.

        I’m also not sure if Ms. Good was attempting to block ICE with her vehicle, but it appeared that way. The only other reason I can think of is that she was attempting to turn around.

        I’m wondering if the dog in that vehicle survived the impact with the parked car.

      4. Roberta Millstein

        Ron:

        1. ICE is immigration, not law enforcement. Renee was a US citizen, not a suspect, not bound to follow orders from an immigration official.

        2. Even if Ross were a police officer, they are still not supposed to SHOOT AND KILL someone for fleeing. Only if someone’s life is in danger are they supposed to shoot. No one’s life was in danger, including the ICE officer.

        3. There are reports that ICE officers were shouting different things at Renee, and that one was telling her to leave. In any case, she had every right to leave the scene.

      5. Ron O

        I don’t see anyone here suggesting that anything that Renee or her wife did or said (other than trying to flee and supposedly endangering the agent in the process) “justified” the shooting.

        Had she not fled, she probably would have been forcibly dragged out of the vehicle at that point.

        If you watch one of those videos, you will hear some audible/apparent fear from the agent, as the vehicle moved forward. Now, whether that fear was reasonable or not (or the exact position of the agent at that point), I’m not weighing in.

        Seems like the “first” choice should be to jump out of the way, especially since there’s no reason to believe that Renee was a dangerous fugitive.

      6. Roberta Millstein

        “Had she not fled, she probably would have been forcibly dragged out of the vehicle at that point.” There would have been no justification for that, either. She was not under arrest and there was no reason to use that kind of force. Even so, obviously, that would be preferable to being dead. There are other ways that law enforcement are supposed to use to deal with a fleeing vehicle. Shooting isn’t one of them, especially, again, when the person hasn’t committed a crime and isn’t under arrest. She was legally free to leave the scene.

  2. Ron O

    “In any case, she had every right to leave the scene.”

    Absolutely not, from the videos I’ve seen. And terrible idea to even “try” to assert any such right.

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      A right is not something that is visible on a video. Rights are enshrined in the law and in the U.S. Constitution. And in a democracy where those rights are respected, a citizen should be able to exercise those rights without fear of being killed.

      Reply
  3. Ron O

    “Renee was a US citizen, not a suspect, not bound to follow orders from an immigration official.”

    Is that right? I haven’t looked into that. Here’s what AI has to say about it (very quick “research”):

    “As with all law enforcement, U.S. citizens must follow lawful orders from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, but they also retain significant constitutional rights, notably the right to remain silent and the right to refuse entry to their homes without a judicial warrant.”

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      I have seen AI get so many things wrong — even to contradict itself from one search to the next — that I give it zero credence. Here is the BBC’s take. There is probably a better one, but that is what came up first in my search. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp80ljjd5rwo

      “Its agents have the power to stop, detain and arrest people they suspect of being in the US illegally. They can detain US citizens in limited circumstances, such as if a person interferes with an arrest, assaults an officer, or ICE suspect the person of being in the US illegally.”

      They are not police. They are there to deal with immigration issues, period.

      A DHS policy memo from 2023 states that federal officers “may use deadly force only when necessary” when they have “a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury” to themself or another person.

      Reply
  4. ->KeiTh

    Renee Good purposely parked her car vertically in the street blocking ICE. It’s reported that her car was there for 4 minutes. They were trying to impede ICE and wanted a confrontation. That’s why Renee’s wife was out of the car, she was videoing everything. They played with fir and a very unfortunate catastrophe happened.

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      I have not seen any evidence of that, and given that you’ve already said some false things, I’m not about to take your word for it. If she actually was impeding an ICE arrest, she should have been arrested, not killed. Furthermore, US citizens have the right to protest, have the right to speak up and speak out, and have the right to video events. In a democratic society, citizens are supposed to be able to exercise those rights without fear of being murdered in cold blood for it.

      Reply
      1. Ron O

        “If she actually was impeding an ICE arrest, she should have been arrested, not killed.”

        She wasn’t even willing to get out of her vehicle, let alone be arrested. She was not killed for resisting arrest. Had she gotten out of the vehicle as ordered to do so (instead of fleeing), she would still be alive.

        Now, whether or not you (or I, or anyone else) agree that the situation called for lethal force is a different matter.

        I’m not sure where people get the idea that they should interfere with, obstruct, or fail to adhere to orders from authorities (or that they have some inherent “right” to do so). This is also very similar to all of the police shootings we have seen.

        Now, if you or others want to argue that ICE has no authority to arrest or detain U.S. citizens, that’s already in conflict with what you cited above (which likely isn’t complete in the first place).

        Already – if charges were brought against the agent (which doesn’t appear likely), “you” are ready to convict based upon what you already believe. I am not at that point.

      2. ->KeiTh

        Everything I’ve stated is backed up by audio and video. Roberta, I don’t think you’ve watched all of the videos about this incident.

      3. Roberta Millstein

        Then provide a link to the video that you think supports your claims.

  5. Ron O

    “Had she not fled, she probably would have been forcibly dragged out of the vehicle at that point.” There would have been no justification for that, either. She was not under arrest and there was no reason to use that kind of force.”

    When authorities give you an order (and you don’t obey it), they normally don’t “announce” that you’re under arrest before dragging you out of a vehicle. Are you claiming this is a “requirement”?

    Would have to look at the video again to see if they had their guns drawn when they first approached the vehicle, since that would likely be questionable in this case.

    “Even so, obviously, that would be preferable to being dead. There are other ways that law enforcement are supposed to use to deal with a fleeing vehicle. Shooting isn’t one of them, especially, again, when the person hasn’t committed a crime and isn’t under arrest. She was legally free to leave the scene.”

    She was absolutely not free to leave the scene, and it’s obviously dangerous to even suggest otherwise. She was ordered by federal authorities to exit her vehicle, and was impeding their progress. She chose not to do so, and decided to flee. From the video I saw, the agent did believe that the vehicle was headed toward him (and may have hit him, not sure).

    It would have been better had he decided to jump out of the way, instead of shooting. But were his actions illegal? I’m less inclined than you to automatically believe that.

    As a side note (since you brought it up), I did not necessarily view Renee’s comments toward the agent as “friendly”. I viewed them as sarcastic (and I believe they may have occurred AFTER she was already ordered to exit the vehicle by more than one agent).

    I’m actually kind of surprised that you apparently think she had no culpability whatsoever in her own death. That type of belief is a large part of the reason that these type of avoidable incidents occur.

    I would, however, suggest that the law be changed so that any authority has an obligation to avoid the use of deadly force as the “first” choice (something like that). Especially if there’s no reason to believe that a potential detainee is not already assumed to be a danger to the public.

    That agent clearly did not have to shoot Renee, despite what he may have believed regarding his own safety. One of the expectations of law enforcement (and yes, ICE are federal law enforcement agents) is a willingness to take some personal risk (e.g., err on the side of the public).

    The decision to shoot Renee exposed the public to MORE risk, not less (a vehicle careening out of control until it hit a parked car).

    Reply
  6. Ron o

    Actually, I do recall that police normally do provide a “warning” (and possibly announcing that you’re under arrest) before dragging you out of your vehicle.

    Had Renee not decided to resist that “suggestion” (in her mind, I guess) while simultaneously deciding to flee, maybe the agents would have given her more chance to exit her vehicle without being dragged out.

    In any case, I’m not going to be interpreting any federal agent’s orders as a “suggestion” anytime soon, let alone trying to drive away when they have guns pointed out me.

    I’ll leave the legal arguments to the ACLU.

    It does truly amaze me how some think that their perceived “rights” matter in situations like this. Maybe that’s why some of them are dead, while I’m still alive (and not even under arrest, for that matter).

    Looking at those agents, their demeanor, their orders, – I’m not going to be smiling and telling them I “don’t hate them” as some kind of sarcastic reassurance. Nor am I going to “give it the gas”, thinking that I’ve avoided any further problem with them.

    Oh, well – maybe their estate will sue the government.

    Reply
  7. Ron O

    While I’m waiting for a couple of other comments to appear, I will say that only a sarcastic, smiling moron – most likely intent on interfering with ICE agents via a blockade would think she was “free to go” when multiple nearby agents with their guns drawn are ordering her out of her vehicle – repeatedly.

    And that she would be in “no danger” whatsoever, by choosing to ignore that “suggestion” and hitting the gas when an agent with his gun drawn is in front of her vehicle (and to the side – I guess that guy didn’t shoot).

    Renee must have thought she had more “rights” than she actually had. As for me, I assume that the only “right” if I accidentally found myself in that situation is the “right” to follow orders and live to tell the tale. And to hopefully get my vehicle back without it getting towed.

    I would be frightened – not smiling. Hand straight up in the air – probably not even reaching for the door handle to exit the vehicle.

    And then I would be apologizing for blocking traffic, especially if I hadn’t intended to do so. “Just a coincidence, officer – I didn’t even know you were coming down this street. Just dropping off my girlfriend to get a haircut or something, and was trying to turn around. Again, my apologies”.

    Reply
  8. Roberta Millstein

    Ron, I don’t have the time to respond to all of that — maybe someone else does — so I’ll just let it stand as is.

    Reply
    1. Ron O

      Matt actually had a good question regarding all of this, on the Vanguard. Essentially suggesting that authorities generally instruct you to get out of the way, before they drag you out of your vehicle. Don’t know if that happened in any way, here – though I recall sirens going off. Pretty sure that Renee was aware that her vehicle was blocking their path. These types of issues are normally what would be examined in a courtroom (but I guess that’s not likely in this case). In any case, it might be more of a systemic failure, than an individual one.

      Reply
      1. Roberta Millstein

        Instruct her to leave her car – why? What immigration issue required her to exit her car? What immigration issue required her to stay in the area? What immigration issue prevented her from being free to go? If there were answers to those questions, I think we would have heard them already. Instead, the government feeds us a false narrative that the immigration agent was defending himself, when it’s clear from the video that she’s turning away from him and that his life was never in danger. So, it just takes us back to the point that she should never have been shot and killed.

  9. ->KeiTh

    Can you imagine a society where everyone feels they don’t have to obey law enforcement orders? Where if one gets stopped for a driving violation they feel they don’t have to obey the officer? Where people feel they have the right to confront and impede law enforcement? That would be a total lawless society. But for some reason liberals feel they have that right.

    Reply
    1. Roberta Millstein

      Yes, it is a society where immigration officers don’t overreach their jurisdiction, where they don’t pretend to be law officers or paid thugs of the federal government, and where they don’t shoot people dead for exercising their rights.

      I’m still waiting for the link to the video that you claim supports your version of events.

      Jonathan Ross had no justification for murdering Renee Good. Period. And everything else you say is just an attempt to change the subject and distract from that basic and obvious point.

      Reply
  10. Ron O

    “Instruct her to leave her car – why? What immigration issue required her to exit her car? What immigration issue required her to stay in the area? What immigration issue prevented her from being free to go? If there were answers to those questions, I think we would have heard them already.”

    We already do – she appeared to be purposefully blocking ICE’s path. That’s interference.

    We are likely to hear more about what they were doing there.

    But the time to ask such questions is after you obey orders. Orders are not “voluntary”, even if you think they might (or might not be) unlawful.

    About 25 years ago, I was pulled over by a female CHP officer while I was driving a moving truck. Unbeknownst to me, she stated that she had been trying to pull me over for awhile, for what she claimed was “weaving” as I was driving down the road.

    Unbeknownst to her, the rental truck I was driving was extremely noisy, had loose steering, and mirrors that flipped around in the wind. I wasn’t aware of her presence until she decided to pull up beside me, AFTER she had backup in place.

    She didn’t initially believe me, and behaved aggressively toward me and the other person in the vehicle. I had to put my hands on my head at one point, after she ordered me out of the vehicle.

    I wasn’t particularly happy about the situation (and knew that I had done absolutely nothing wrong), but what I did do was to OBEY HER ORDERS. And I also did not try to escape with her in front of the vehicle, with a gun already drawn. (Fortunately, she didn’t pull out a gun at all, probably due to my cooperation.)

    Now, maybe you would have handled it differently (and escalated the situation), but I’m not looking to prove a point when faced with orders.

    It’s pretty obvious that a large segment of the population simply doesn’t like the fact that orders from law enforcement are not voluntary.

    Reminds me of those politicians suggesting that soldiers don’t have to obey “unlawful” orders. I’m sure that would go over well with their immediate superiors.

    It’s entirely possible that any one of us will be pulled over very aggressively by authorities for something we didn’t do (e.g., mistaken identity, etc.).

    Reply
  11. Ron O

    I would add that the difference between me and you, Roberta (in this particular case) is that you would apparently convict the agent right now without a trial, while I would withhold judgement. I already do believe (from his reaction as the vehicle moved toward him) that HE believed his life was in danger. The question might be whether or not that fear was reasonable, and what his training calls for in regard to that type of situation.

    On a broader level, perhaps some changes in the law (not to mention procedure) are warranted.

    It’s pretty obvious (in looking at the video) that Renee did not intend to run over the agent, and was not a danger to the public until she was “driving” the vehicle while already dead.

    So whatever the law or procedure is (assuming they were adhered to) was not working very well in this particular case, needless to say.

    In the meantime, I’d suggest following orders and not attempting to escape when any authority has their guns pointed out you – even if you don’t believe the orders are lawful.

    Reply
  12. Ron O

    ” .. . . where they don’t shoot people dead for exercising their rights.”

    The way you frame this is so biased. Renee was not shot because she was “exercising her rights”, and you already know that.

    No one has a right to disobey orders, let alone drive toward an armed agent while trying to escape.

    No one has a right to interfere with ICE agents in the first place. That alone is a federal crime.

    Reply
  13. Ron O

    This is apparently what occurred prior to the incident:

    Reply
  14. Ron O

    For what it’s worth, I now have a very different opinion of what occurred, and more importantly – how it occurred (compared to what I concluded at first).

    I do believe that the agent was actually hit by the vehicle, as well. (At which point, it still would have been better had he not responded with deadly force, also causing the vehicle to careen out of control.) They had her license plate number that point, just let it go and deal with it later. Especially since this lady was not likely a cop-killing fugitive, for example. The use of the gun did not save the agent’s life. But I would NOT convict that agent, based on my understanding of the law and the video. I already have enough “evidence” to err on the side of innocence. Seems like there needs to be some change in policy/law, regarding how/when to use deadly force in response to a threat.

    In any case, it seems as though there’d be a “hung jury” if I was on the same jury as someone like Roberta. There is no way I’d agree with others on a jury, just for the sake of expediency. I trust my own judgement, and am not concerned about popularity contests (regarding any issue, really).

    Reply

Leave a reply to Ron O Cancel reply