US & World

Minnesota ICE Shooting: The Marketplace of Ideas is Working

If you’re still smart enough to think for yourself…

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

by WILL FOLKS

***

An officer of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shot and killed a woman on Wednesday morning (January 7, 2026) during operations in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The incident occurred amid elevated tensions and widespread community interference with ICE’s mission.

The shooting was captured on video from multiple angles. Without any commentary as to the views espoused by the operators of these social media accounts (or any presumed emphasis as to the order of the links), you can view all three videos of the shooting here, here and here.

Not surprisingly, everyone has an opinion on the matter… hinging in large part on whether they felt the shooting was provoked and/or unnecessary or a justified act of self-defense.

DHS secretary Kristi Noem fell firmly in the latter camp, calling the deceased Minnesota woman – 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good – a domestic terrorist. Meanwhile, Minnesota governor Tim Walz – the former vice presidential nominee of Kamala Harris – not only adopted the former view of the shooting, he threatened to call out his state’s National Guard against the federal government if ICE operations continued.

And those were actually among the more middle-of-the-road takes on what transpired…

Support FITSNews … SUBSCRIBE!

***

The socialverse exploded in the aftermath of the incident with all manner of unhinged-ness and vitriol. People generally lost their minds – celebrating death, demonizing ideologies, denigrating dissent and doing everything they could to make the incident conform to their tribe’s way of thinking.

Cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, pearl-clutching, gas-lighting, canned/clichéd outrage… all of it was (and is) in full effect. And will be in effect for the foreseeable future.

And guess what… that’s a good thing.

Wait… hold up. What?

Well, maybe let me say that a little bit better under the circumstances: it’s not a bad thing.

Five years ago, a conversation like this would have unfolded (and did unfold) in a dramatically different environment: one in which MSM and heavily biased social media engines drove discourse in their preferred direction (i.e. to the left). An official narrative of whatever seminal event took place would have been institutionally established, duly spin-doctored and disseminated – and anyone who stood against it would have been doxxed, threatened and cancelled.

In other words, you would have been told what to think, why to think it and not to question it.

Today? It’s the exact opposite…

***

RELATED | LOS ANGELES ON EDGE: A HARBINGER OF VIOLENCE?

***

Today, it’s perspective overload. Every nerve is exposed. Every impulse expressed. Every knee-jerk jerked. Every ‘barbaric yawp’ rooftopped. And while there are days (like yesterday) when such torrential expression can feel just as depressingly soul-crushing – and maddeningly dystopian – as the Orwellian alternative, we must remain mindful of how important it is that we are having this conversation (and others like it) freely and fully. And how fortunate we are to be able to participate in it – or not participate in it.

Yes, opportunists, shysters, charlatans and profiteers are exploiting this shooting – dominating the discussion as they pull at every synapse and heartstring in the name of perpetual division and gaining the upper hand in our increasingly uncivil culture war.

But guess what? We get to say that…

What do I think about what happened in Minnesota? While that’s not really the point of this column, here are a few observations purely from my personal perspective…

***

– It’s sad someone had to die.
– It’s sad people in this country hate each other so much.
– It’s likely there were aggravating and mitigating factors (pre-videos) related to this incident we don’t know about.
– Based on the videos, the late protester clearly ignored lawful police commands.
– Based on the videos, the officer who fired the fatal shots likely has some claim to self-defense.

Absent any unknown aggravating factor, the use of lethal force in this situation – while potentially justified – does appear to have been unnecessary.
– Like shutting down the border, ICE’s efforts to apprehend illegal aliens (especially criminals) is critical to our national security and long-term prosperity.
– State and local leaders should not disrupt (or encourage the disruption of) lawful police activity.
– Interfering in lawful police activity is a crime.
– Refusing the lawful commands of a police officer is a crime.

***

Now that you know my initial personal observations on the matter, you may be inclined to discount everything I said previously. Or perhaps you’ll be inclined to give it more credence.

Whatever you decide to think, that’s the point.

You get to think – and decide – for yourself.

“The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas,” legendary supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once wrote. “The best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

While it’s a shame tragedies like this have become such zero sum games to so many people, we only lose the real battle when we stop thinking, deciding – and speaking – for ourselves. Or when we embrace the censorship culture that seeks to tell us what to think and say.

Here at FITSNews, we will always say what we think… but our primary purpose will always be hosting that broader conversation.

BANNER VIA: MINNESOTA PUBLIC RADIO

***

ABOUT THE AUTHOR…

Will Folks on phone
Will Folks (Brett Flashnick)

Will Folks is the founding editor of the news outlet you are currently reading. Prior to founding FITSNews, he served as press secretary to the governor of South Carolina. He lives in the Midlands region of the state with his wife and eight children.

***

WANNA SOUND OFF?

Got something you’d like to say in response to one of our articles? Or an issue you’d like to address proactively? We have an open microphone policy! Submit your letter to the editor (or guest column) via email HERE. Got a tip for a story? CLICK HERE. Got a technical question or a glitch to report? CLICK HERE.

***

Subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here…

*****

Related posts

SC

Jeffrey Epstein Exchanged Emails With Former Miss South Carolina USA

Andrew Fancher
US & World

The Epstein Files: Death of the Truth

Will Folks
US & World

Palmetto Past & Present: The Mother of All Snowball Fights

Mark Powell

18 comments

Nanker Phelge January 8, 2026 at 11:57 am

“You get to think – and decide – for yourself.”

In other words ignore what is plainly seen on video.

I’m guessing people who are celebrating this woman’s death will not be losing their jobs.

Reply
Deep Throating the Boot January 8, 2026 at 2:20 pm

Go read a Reason article. This was state violence. This was murder. Even the “domestic terrorist” label being reflexively put on the murder victim isn’t new, they did it before against another person that ended up having charges dropped against them when, surprise surprise, video evidence completely exonerated them too.

Stop calling yourself small government or libertarian. You’re MAGA cult through and through.

Reply
Avatar photo
The Colonel Top fan January 8, 2026 at 2:25 pm

You know, a lot of people are asking “why did this happen” – it’s pretty simple. The deceased woman interjected herself in situation she should have not. Regardless of your opinion about ICE and the immigration discussion, interfering in the operations of guys who are carrying guns and who have been vilified and attacked by the left puts you in danger – it’s a simple matter of FAFO. Don’t want you or yours to get shot – don’t get in the line of fire.

Protesting is fine – go down to the local courthouse and have at it. Go to the State House and have at it. Go to the US Capital and have at it. The minute you begin to interfere with law enforcement operations, you have moved from your 1st Amendment Right into the realm of FAFO – regardless of whether YOU approve of them or not.

If you don’t like it, get elected and change the law or file a lawsuit and get an injunction. If when the courts rule against you, appeal that decision but once you’re out of appeals your only safe option is the elected and change option. Running into the middle of a police operation in your Honda Pilot isn’t a good idea as the video clearly shows, regardless of your political affiliation.

Reply
Tennessee Jed January 8, 2026 at 3:45 pm

As soon as someone says FAFO, you know they are simply parroting MAGA talking points. Bottom line: she should not have been shot. Any reasonable person who doesn’t feel the need to go party over country knows this. Common decency.

Reply
U R A Bootlicker January 9, 2026 at 3:53 am

I bet Michael Slager whishes you were his attorney since that shooting was obviously justified in your mind.

Reply
Late Stage Fascism January 8, 2026 at 4:13 pm

“The left hurt ICE’s fee fees so now they get to execute anyone they claim stepped slightly out of line, FAFO, FAFO!”

That’s going to be a fun one to explain to God on Judgement Day. God have mercy on a MAGAt’s soul…

Reply
Squishy123 (the original) January 9, 2026 at 1:05 pm

Ironic from the guy who was celebrating the shooting of Charlie Kirk.

Reply
Anonymous January 8, 2026 at 6:05 pm

God forbid, the same thing ever happen to one of Will or the Col’s family their Trump bootlicking BS would evaporate.

Reply
SubZeroIQ January 9, 2026 at 12:09 am

“Refusing the lawful commands of a police officer is a crime.”
First, how is an ICE officer’s “command” for a citizen to get out of her car lawful?
Most important: is the proper punishment of every crime the death penalty? And with an ICE officer as the judge, jury, and executioner?

And correction: Tim Walz did NOT “threaten to call out his state’s national guard against the federal government.” He only put them on ready status should the demonstrations get violent. He was prepared to activate his state’s national guard “against” his own protesters INSTEAD OF, not “against” ICE quelling the protests.
There can be “no market place of ideas” about what Tim Walz actually said.

Reply
Just another guest January 9, 2026 at 12:54 am

“Refusing the lawful commands of a police officer is a crime.”
First, how is an ICE officer’s “command” for a citizen to get out of her car lawful?
Most important: is the proper punishment of every crime the death penalty? And with an ICE officer as the judge, jury, and executioner?

And correction: Tim Walz did NOT “threaten to call out his state’s national guard against the federal government.” He only put them on ready status should the demonstrations get violent. He was prepared to activate his state’s national guard “against” his own protesters INSTEAD OF, not “against” ICE quelling the protests.
There can be “no market place of ideas” about what Tim Walz actually said.

Reply
Just another guest January 9, 2026 at 1:03 am

This comment of mine keeps appearing disappearing. So, here it is again “on the market place of ideas”:

“Refusing the lawful commands of a police officer is a crime.”
First, how is an ICE officer’s “command” for a citizen to get out of her car lawful?
Most important: is the proper punishment of every crime the death penalty? And with an ICE officer as the judge, jury, and executioner?

And correction: Tim Walz did NOT “threaten to call out his state’s national guard against the federal government.” He only put them on ready status should the demonstrations get violent. He was prepared to activate his state’s national guard “against” his own protesters INSTEAD OF, not “against” ICE quelling the protests.
There can be “no market place of ideas” about what Tim Walz actually said.

Reply
Squishy123 (the original) January 9, 2026 at 1:03 pm

Don’t be retarded…

Reply
Squishy123 (the original) January 9, 2026 at 1:01 pm

The people who are commenting she was afraid and didn’t know who these people were are just delusional, she was there to be a “constitutional observer”, from the same people who also use words like “unalived”. She was not at home, she lives in the area but her home is blocks away from where the shooting occured, she was parked blocking the road. She had been following the ICE units in Minneapolis, she was not unaware of who was there or why they were there. Her decision that day was to disrupt the duties of ICE. Had she parked along the curb instead of into the street, had she not moved her vehicle and complied with the officers telling her to get out of her car, had she not sped off when the officer tried to open her door since she refused to exit her vehicle, had she not backed up and gunned the engine while driving forward aimed at an officer doing his duty she’d still be here for her kids. What happened to her that day was all on her. Her protesting was not going to stop ICE from doing their duties.

Reply
Joshua Kendrick Top fan January 10, 2026 at 2:10 pm

This was long, so let me paraphrase for all of you: “When the federal government comes into your neighborhood, you stay out of the way, keep your mouth shut, and don’t question them.”

Nice comment, collaborator…

Reply
SubZeroIQ January 11, 2026 at 11:45 am

Not at all being self-centered, but believing that all things are related in some degree or another and that we should always be vigilant against letting bad facts make bad laws, God willing and FITS permitting, I paste here my comment on a three-year old article of which I just became aware:
I had no idea Ms. Lyons reported on my attempted intervention in the case; and what I wrote sounds better when selected and quoted by Ms. Lyons, whom I belatedly thank for the attention.
A correction, though: I was never actually granted the status of a substitute plaintiff. I was only a movant to become a substitute plaintiff.
As such my appeal could not have been from the decision to release the call but only from the decision to deny me substitute plaintiff status. Had I won that appeal and been granted substitute plaintiff status, I could then have argued in district court against the decision to release the calls.
There is a conflict of decisions which still remains to be resolved with the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling that notice is not consent and an ancient case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vaguely equating notice with consent.
My focus was, and is, that release of calls from South Carolina county detention facilities is a question capable of repetition but evading review due to the theoretical short sojourn of inmates in those facilities. The inmates in such facilities are either: (1) pre-trial detainees denied bond (or before being granted bond) thus presumed innocent no matter horror of the allegations, or (2) serving short sentences upon conviction of petty crimes in municipal or county courts; and such sentences are typically not suspended pending appeal.
In reality, however, pre-trial detention may last years in South Carolina; and appeals of petty crime convictions DO occasionally get granted.
So, in my opinion free from false humility, the loss of privacy (not only of the inmate but of that inmate’s family and/or friends on the other end of the call) is too high a sacrifice for a presumed-innocent-later-proven-actually-innocent person to lay at the altar of freedom of the press.
And mistakes DO happen, as in the cited instance of a mistaken release of a call between Alex Murdaugh (who may yet turn out to have been mistakenly convicted in the ending of Paul’s and Maggie’s lives) and his lawyer, Jim Griffin.
Once lost, privacy cannot be regained. Freedom of the press should never be denied; but it can and should, under certain circumstances, be deferred.

Reply
SubZeroIQ January 11, 2026 at 12:31 pm

Without tooting my own proverbial horn, seeing beauty in, and deriving happiness from, the abstract is one of the highest forms of human evolution.
For example, experiencing delight in the idea that man landed on the moon. You can’t play with it as if it were a pet, smell it as if it were perfume, or eat it or drink it or smoke it. But if you are highly evolved, you can derive from it such happiness as if you played with it, smelled it, smoked it, drank it and eaten it.
The few of us committed to prevention derive happiness from the realization that we prevented something bad. We don’t get paid or applauded for it; and sometimes we even get attacked for it. But prevention makes us happy.
This still-evolving Minnesota story, and my recent visit to the three-year-old Green Pond article on this outlet, again reminded me of the lack of preventive imagination.
Democrats’ solution to every problem (including the impending Obama Care crisis) is to throw money at it.
Republicans’ solution to every problem is to throw prisons and/or deportations at it.
But when it really matters, both extremes can find imaginative solutions. For example, instead of prosecuting and imprisoning mothers who self-abort or who kill or neglect a live birth after a non-noticed pregnancy, a safe-heaven law was passed that such mothers could simply and timely take that live but very vulnerable baby to a hospital, church, or fire station, and leave it there, NO QUESTIONS ASKED OR ANSWERED.
The success of such law proves what happens when the pure-hearted purpose is to save the lives of babies born to unprepared mothers instead of a demagogue purpose of mutual recriminations about disregard of morality and disrespect for privacy.
Statistically, death penalties are most frequently imposed on convenience-store murders after failed-or-completed robberies, murders after attempted-or-completed rapes, murders for hire or for self of witnesses to a crime, and murders of law enforcement officers.
Decades, even centuries, of the death penalty for such murders have not stopped them.
If the lives of convenience-store clerks (the majority of whom are immigrants) mattered to both extremes as the lives of babies born to unprepared mothers, we would, FOR EXAMPLE, have a law to have a 24/7 on call father-confessor (my Catholic education is showing; but only Catholic and Orthodox father confessors are exempt from the requirement to report an intended or completed crime) to whom a drug addict hard-up for money to buy drugs and considering an armed robbery or a convenience store could go to find an alternative, even if the alternative were to be given a little money to buy the drugs and use them in the confessor’s presence THEN REPORT TO A TREATMENT FACILITY no additional questions asked.
Can this idea be gamed? Sure. But the human imagination which sent men to the moon and brought them back safely can be stimulated and applied to prevent murders.

Reply
SubZeroIQ January 20, 2026 at 1:03 pm

“Market place of ideas” and “open mic” my cute size 6.5 foot!
FITS, in a world of integrity, it should cost you nothing to run my comments critical of “sitting” prosecutors. My comments even probably get you more clicks than you or your readers have the courage to admit.
But clearly, you as many before you, succumbed to pressure to not air the perjury-promoting prosecutors problems before a big trial where she is expected to deploy her usual “art.”
Not only did you refuse to let me paste here my recoil at your crowning Hatchet-for-Hire Heather (Weiss) “a competent prosecutor” and classing her among “some great lawyer” on your FITS Tube Week-in-Review, you deleted my comment from that broadcast.
I will not repeat my advice for you to go coercive-control yourself. I will advise to re-examine your conscience.

Reply
SubZeroIQ January 20, 2026 at 2:11 pm

After this last appeal to your conscience, maybe other media outlets or more principled propagandist such as Wes Donahue
There is no market place of ideas about perjury being a crime.
It is a crime for which, incidentally as early as the Hammurabi code and as late as the early 20th Century, the death penalty (which I oppose) was imposed.
Nor can there be a debate that a prosecutor who suborns perjury should be held to account.
Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has always recognized perjury and lies about facts as exceptions to the rights of free speech.
Yet, while claiming to fight for justice and accountability, not only to you glorify a perjury-suborning prosecutor, you refuse to run this comment of mine:
Will Folks, at 1:02:07, you crown Heather Weiss (“Hatchet-for-Hire Heather” in my book) “a competent prosecutor” and continue at 1:02:14 to class her among “some great lawyers,” after I repeatedly provided you transcript and record evidence that, for years, Weiss received from the City of Columbia $70K/year IN ADDITION TO HER SALARY as assistant to then-5th-Circuit-Solicitor Barney Giese, and to John Meadors after Barney Giese stepped down, SOLELY to bring criminal charges, justified or not, against the political or civil-litigation-adversaries of the City of Columbia itself or of its officials.
I now see clearly that in inability to advertise on your outlets, or even pay the monthly subscription to it, makes what Hatchet-for-Hire Heather did to me unworthy of you condemnation, or even investigation.
Just in case you forgot, that very Weiss had, in 2001 convicted one Corey/Cory Lamont Curry of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and got him sentenced to five years. In 2009, that very Curry returned to the vicinity of his 2001 PWID arrest, threatened to rape me, snatch my camera, and use it to photograph himself in the act of raping me, then stood in my parking lot publicly masturbating at me and later shooting me the bird with both his hands.
What did Hatchet-for-Hire Heather do about my photo-documented reports to law enforcement about Curry’s acts? Hatchet-for-Hire Heather had ME falsely arrested under FALSE PRETEXT that I harassed that supposedly-poor, hapless Curry by photographing him in the act of making lewd gestures at me.
Why did Hatchet-for-Hire do that? Because I was suing the City of Columbia to re-route sewer pipes improperly but clandestinely placed on a vacant lot of land Mother and I had purchased earlier that year unaware that the illegal sewer lines made it unbuildable until the sewer pipes were moved.
Did Hatchet-for-Hire stop at falsely arresting me? No, no, NO. When she found out that I will not knuckle under, she began scheming to cause my death in one of the most gruesome ways imaginable. She knew that in 1980 I had had thyroid surgery in Chapel Hill, NC, and that metal surgical staples were placed in my neck instead of absorbable surgical sutures to stop profuse bleeding. That was before MRIs were invented. Knowing that, Hatchet for Hire began pushing for a brain MRI as a condition of my bond. That, God forbade, would have cause the powerful magnetic field to violently pull the metal staples out of my neck and tear arteries, veins, nerves, and other structures in the process.
Did she stop after I bonded out and later, thank God and WITHOUT A LAWYER did for myself what Murdaugh’s team could not do for him: prevent a jury from returning a wrongful conviction? No, no, NO. Instead of dismissing the false case against me or giving me the speedy retrial for which I was pushing, Hatchet-for-Hire actually filed a motion to find me, ME, who dazzled judges with my brilliance, mentally incompetent to continue representing myself, and get this, because of the thyroid surgery I had in 1980.
That is all in OFFICIAL transcripts.
As is the fact that Heather Weiss LIED to Judge Clifton Newman about that Corey/Cory Curry’s criminal record after Weiss had listed Curry as one of her witness but declined to call him and I wanted him as a hostile witness in my defense.
Hatchet-for-Hire Heather Weiss suborned 365 perjuries from one of the false witnesses against me. Yet, not John Meadors, not Alan Wilson, not Clifton Newman, not John Kittredge, not anyone does anything about it after being provided with the annotated transcript OBJECTIVELY proving those perjuries and subornation.
Well, the other “great” lawyers Laurie Taylor and Shaun Kent are provided with a copy of this comment and that annotated transcript; and they owe it to their clients, if not to me or to the honor of the profession, to bring Heather Weiss’ past unethical conduct to light.

Reply

Leave a Comment