MN -- woman shot in face and killed by ICE, Minneapolis, 7 Jan 2026

[LAborn]

SBM

This should appall everyone. Is that why the agents stopped and went back to Good, simply to terrorize her? When comparisons are made to notorious agencies of the past, this is why. There was no reason for the agents to stop their car and engage bystanders.

Yes and YES!!! That's exactly why they stopped and went back to her. No reason for the agents to stop them, except for the stated reason. This pattern of abuse is repeated over and over and over again, on tape wherever they go. JMO

 

[Elley Mae]

No, he wasn't. But I'm beginning to understand why some people want to believe that so hard.


Either imagine Renee did something wrong, or recognize the USA has become a place where ICE's real mission is to just keep ordinary citizens afraid of exercising their basic rights.


I get why people look at a clear video of this shooting and want to blame the victim. It's because they can't not allow themselves to accept that in the USA, they could be next.

MOO



MOO

I believe what I see and I see him being hit.
If you don’t see it thats fine.

[Mod Snip]

Jmo

 

[NuttMegg]

Who is the owner of the gray car parked next to Good's that was blocking a street? What punishmemt was doled out to the owner of that car who left it there?
-‐----------

 

[Oakland CA]

I would never put myself in a situation to be shot by law enforcement.

Jmo

I would never put myself in a situation where I would be escalating, not de-escalating, the situation.

jmo

 

[Summerliz03]

I hope that if this thread stays on course, maybe we could have reaction emojis back? I just think it would make it easier to have actual discussion with them because having to quote every single person you agree with and saying “like/agree/yes” is sort of clogging up the thread and making it harder to follow. I completely understand why they were disabled and I respect how hard it is to moderate this thread based on the nature of the crime but hopefully maybe they could be turned back on in the near future if the discussion stays on track? Thank you all for your hard work in running the site

 

[Mickey Mouse]

I agree, its very frustrating! Good posts should be able to appreciated IMO. Maybe a compromise with the emojis, back to basics for this thread could work?

I don't think it's very effective. Now we have to scroll through multiple posts that say nothing but one or two word variations of "I agree".

 

[Rolypolyoly]

LE authority does not turn off because someone is a US citizen, a mother, unarmed in the sense of not holding a gun. A moving 4000 pound vehicle used against an officer is a deadly weapon . His job in that moment was not immigration enforcement , it was self defense. IMO

His job was literally to not stand in front of the vehicle, it says so in the handbook!
This entire situation was caused by the ICE agent not doing his job properly. Ignoring the rules of his job, so technically if she had hit him with her car, which I don't believe she did, any injuries or even death would have been his own fault, yes?

 

[Mickey Mouse]

I would never put myself in a situation where I would be escalating, not de-escalating, the situation.

jmo

I would never walk in front of a running car, but I guess I'm just overly cautious.

 

[witchway]

For reference, I would like to refer everyone to our constitutional rights in particular the first 10 amendments.

The Amendments | Constitution Center

Not my opinion but our rights.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Thought experiment. Someone cuts me off in traffic. At the next light I exit my vehicle and go to their car to discuss courtesy and traffic laws with them. If I stand in front of their car, and it moves towards me, am I then justified to shoot the driver in self defense?

Keep in mind that ice has no jurisdiction over state/local parking or traffic violations.

 

[Inthedetails]

His job was literally to not stand in front of the vehicle, it says so in the handbook!

Snipped



The head of Homeland Security said the agent followed his training so I guess that means agents are trained to stand in front of vehicles, claim they were in danger, and kill the driver?

 

[Mickey Mouse]

For reference, I would like to refer everyone to our constitutional rights in particular the first 10 amendments.

The Amendments | Constitution Center

Not my opinion but our rights.

Off topic, but imo the 9th amendment doesn't get nearly enough love.

 

[303gmf]

No, he wasn't. But I'm beginning to understand why some people want to believe that so hard.


Either imagine Renee did something wrong, or recognize the USA has become a place where ICE's real mission is to just keep ordinary citizens afraid of exercising their basic rights.


I get why people look at a clear video of this shooting and want to blame the victim. It's because they can't not allow themselves to accept that in the USA, they could be next.

MOO



MOO

Mind boggling isn’t it

 

[Hexe]

Thanks for posting this video. This is the video I watched that clearly shows Ross being hit by her vehicle.

I find it interesting that the only video that seems to confirm that is the one shot from huge distance, where you can barely see anything.

The New York Times made a neat compilation of footage.
You van watch it here. It's plain as a day Ross put himself in front of already moving vehicle and wasn't even nicked by it.

MOO

 

[Rolypolyoly]

I think the situation this egregious required a statement from the White House. I don't think saying nothing at all was an option.

I completely agree with your sentiment, although in this particular instance I would argue that saying nothing would have been 100 times more preferable to lies they spouted. JMO.

 

[tlcya]

What it comes down to for me (besides the fact that all the ICE officers had plenty of room on the road to just drive past Renee’s car and had zero need to stop and engage with her at all) is 2 things:

1. Him moving his cell phone to his non dominant hand as he’s still walking around her vehicle. Why would he do this unless he was considering and planning to have his right hand available to draw his weapon and shoot. This sets up premeditation for me.

2. The self defense thing pretty much falls apart when he takes shots 2 and 3 from the complete side of her vehicle, into her open drivers side car window. He was standing next to her car at that point so there was zero danger to him at that point. Firing more shots into her car just puts him, his colleagues and every citizen on that street in more danger. As a trained agent with over 10 years of experience, he had to know that shooting into a car does not make it stop.

All MOO.

Agree w the BBM, even if one ascribes to the self defense theory for the first shot (I personally don't but understand that others do), how does one reconcile shots two and three, fired into the driver's side window well after the alleged threat had passed?

 

[rogue ant]

I find it interesting that the only video that seems to confirm that is the one shot from huge distance, where you can barely see anything.

The New York Times made a neat compilation of footage.
You van watch it here. It's plain as a day Ross put himself in front of already moving vehicle and wasn't even nicked by it.

MOO

There was no contact between Ross and the SUV. You see him calmly re-holstering his gun. He's clear of the vehicle throughout the interaction.

The only contact between an officer and Renee's car is the agent who is trying to open her car door (it's locked). He then reaches his hand inside (her window his down) to try to unlock it. It doesn't seem to even enter this officer's mind to shoot and kill her on the spot. Maybe he has better control of his emotions/anger.

 

[north_west]

"The First Amendment does not protect free speech if it violates laws such as trespassing, disobeying or interfering with a lawful order by a law enforcement officer."

https://www.aclu-mn.org/app/uploads/2017/04/protestrights.pdf

Source of Law:

"(a) The constitutional freedom of speech and press does not immunize speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. P. 336 U. S. 498.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/336/490/

 

[Summerliz03]

"The First Amendment does not protect free speech if it violates laws such as trespassing, disobeying or interfering with a lawful order by a law enforcement officer."

https://www.aclu-mn.org/app/uploads/2017/04/protestrights.pdf

Source of Law:

"(a) The constitutional freedom of speech and press does not immunize speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. P. 336 U. S. 498.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/336/490/

Where in that ruling does it say that the law enforcement is allowed to shoot someone if they don’t like what they are saying or if they feel like they are inferring with their order?

 

[Gators North]

Thank you. Beautiful. A voice of common sense.

I always enjoy @Charlot123’s posts.