The Slippery Slope of Normalizing Interference With Lawful Enforcement
Early in the morning of January 7, 2026, a tragic and avoidable death in Minneapolis put a stark spotlight on a dangerous and escalating problem: what happens when citizens and activists intentionally place themselves in the midst of lawful federal law-enforcement activity with the express aim of obstructing it.
That day, 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, a mother of three, was fatally shot by an ICE agent during a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation in south Minneapolis. The Department of Homeland Security says the shooting occurred when Good’s vehicle allegedly moved toward ICE agents and threatened their safety; family, witnesses, and local leaders dispute aspects of that narrative and note conflicting accounts.
This was no routine traffic stop. Federal agents were conducting a planned enforcement operation under longstanding U.S. law. Around the operation, local activists had established a sort of informal “watch”, sounding whistles, honking horns, and attempting to intercept or block officers as they moved.
It’s vital to state plainly and unequivocally: No one deserves to die, especially a civilian who is a U.S. citizen, who left children behind, who was described by loved ones as kind and full of light.
But we must also ask: what precedent do we set when interference with lawful enforcement becomes normalized, celebrated, or even encouraged in political rhetoric?
What Happened — In the Clear Light of Fact
Reliable reporting confirms a few indisputable points:
Renee Good was killed by an ICE agent during a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis.
She was driving a vehicle at the time of the encounter; federal officials asked her to exit the vehicle. She refused to exit the vehicle and video clearly shows her accelerating towards the path of one of the agents who shot her in the process.
The scene was part of an Ice operation that drew protests and activism aimed at deterring enforcement actions.
The incident has sparked national protests, debate, and political conflict between federal and local leaders.
In other words, at a minimum, an ongoing lawful federal operation intersected with an organized campaign to impede it — and the result was a devastating death that should never have happened.
Law Enforcement in a Free Society Isn’t Optional
A free and orderly society depends on the rule of law, not on selective enforcement, not on enforcement by consent only, not on enforcement only when and where it fits one faction’s narrative. Laws are enforced because they reflect the social compact, not because they’re fashionable or politically popular.
When a group of activists decide to “watch,” “monitor,” or “intervene” with enforcement, and especially when they physically place themselves in the path of federal agents, they are choosing to become a human barrier to law enforcement. That’s not oversight, that’s obstruction.
Some cities and states have even declared themselves sanctuaries, refusing to cooperate with federal officers, sheltering those subject to enforcement, and limiting local assistance or access to jails and courts. In such places, arrests that might lawfully occur in secure venues like courthouses or detention centers instead unfold on public streets, where tension naturally runs higher. That’s a recipe for chaos. It’s not compassionate to leave laws unenforced; it’s a path to confusion, conflict, and tragedy.
The Danger of Political Rhetoric That Encourages Defiance
All of this has been exacerbated by political language from some elected officials who use hyperbolic terms, calling federal agents names like “Gestapo” or framing lawful enforcement as morally illegitimate.
When political leaders suggest that enforcement itself is illegitimate, or worse, that disrupting enforcement is noble, they are normalizing civil disobedience against lawful activity. This emboldens extreme actions, whether shouted at protests or literally placed in the street at the moment of enforcement.
This is not theoretical. We have now seen:
Mass protests across the country in response to a law-enforcement fatality tied to interference.
Local political leaders publicly disputing facts and narratives before investigations are complete.
That environment doesn’t make society safer. It makes it more volatile.
Compassion Doesn’t Mean Chaos
Let’s be clear: compassion is not laxity. Compassion is not abandoning the rule of law because we fear enforcement might be unpopular in some quarters. Compassion doesn’t mean setting up roadblocks in front of agents and hoping nothing terrible happens.
Compassion means:
Upholding laws fairly and consistently.
Ensuring enforcement agencies act with professionalism, restraint, and transparency.
Encouraging de-escalation and the highest standards of conduct by law enforcement.
Providing accountability when mistakes or misconduct occur.
Indeed, everyone, from federal agents to local leaders, should be committed to sound law enforcement tactics that minimize risk and protect life. That is why police and use-of-force experts stress that shooting at moving vehicles is generally a last-resort decision and must meet strict standards of threat assessment.
But that imperative goes both ways: law enforcement should act with restraint and accountability, and citizens should not be encouraged to obstruct lawful actions that keep society functioning.
The Real Threat to Public Safety
Let’s think about the wider implications.
When people are emboldened to think that organizing to block federal officers is noble, when opposing enforcement is framed as protecting the vulnerable, we inch closer to a society where laws are followed only by those who choose to follow them.
That’s not freedom. That’s fragmentation.
Citizens empowered to obstruct lawful activity become a kind of unofficial enforcement, a vigilante mindset. And such tactics very easily escalate into violence. We already saw the worst consequence: a life was lost.
We’ve seen how quickly tensions can grow, protests that began after this tragedy have drawn hundreds or thousands, with local authorities scrambling to maintain order.
Anarchy doesn’t start with a bang. It starts with a shrug: “Why shouldn’t we interfere?” or “Why is enforcing this law worse than refusing to enforce it?”
A Call to Uphold Law, Dignity, and Order
The solution isn’t to vilify enforcement, it’s to insist on lawful, transparent enforcement that respects human dignity. And on the other side, we must reject the normalization of obstructing lawful activity:
Support oversight and accountability mechanisms that respect due process.
Insist that activists refrain from placing themselves and others in harm’s way.
Encourage political leaders to temper their language and respect the rule of law.
A society that allows mobs to define when and how laws are enforced is no longer governed by law, it’s governed by whim.
We can mourn Renee Good’s tragic death while still insisting that law enforcement must be lawful, and that interference with lawful enforcement is dangerous for everyone.
We can demand de-escalation training and accountability while rejecting narratives that cheer obstruction. A free society depends on both sides acting responsibly.
In the end, upholding the rule of law is the most compassionate thing we can do for every citizen, including those we may disagree with politically.
“A society that bows to obstruction loses its compass; a nation that defends the rule of law preserves the dignity of all.” — Alma Ohene-Opare
If more people thought this through, like this well reasoned article we would have a lot less of this sophomoric activism.
Totally agree with this. Well said.