History keeps meticulous records. Humans keep none. What is past is prologue, and once again, nobody bothered to read it.
Cue the emotional detonation following the death of Renee Good in Minneapolis. Predictably, grief was immediately repackaged, politicized, and sold at retail outrage prices before the law was even unpacked.
Start with the part everyone skipped. The law.
The primary federal statute governing interference with federal officers is 18 U.S.C. § 111, titled Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees. This statute applies broadly to federal law enforcement personnel defined under 18 U.S.C. § 1114, including ICE agents while performing official duties.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a), it is a crime to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with such officers while engaged in their duties. “Forcibly” does not require Hollywood theatrics. Courts have consistently held that physical resistance, threats creating reasonable fear, or active obstruction qualify.
This statute is not exotic. It is the workhorse of federal law enforcement.
Penalties scale with conduct.
Simple assault, with no physical contact and no intent to commit another felony, is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in custody and fines under 18 U.S.C. § 3571.
Physical contact or intent to commit another felony elevates the offense to a Class D felony, punishable by up to eight years.
Use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, or infliction of bodily injury, raises exposure to a Class C felony, with penalties up to twenty years.
Sentencing ultimately depends on federal guidelines, criminal history, and case specifics. The statute applies wherever federal officers are lawfully performing their duties.
Other statutes can apply in specialized circumstances, but § 111 is the backbone for direct interference in the field. Passive acts like lying fall elsewhere and are legally distinct.
Now the inconvenient part. Officers do not get to vote on which laws they enforce. They swear to enforce them. Full stop.
The record reflects that Ms. Good was facing arrest for deliberately using her SUV to block ICE agents in the performance of their duties. Rather than submit, she accelerated. At that moment, the vehicle ceased being transportation and became a potential weapon.
What followed was the use of deadly force by an ICE agent. Whether that force was justified turns on one thing only: whether the agent reasonably perceived an imminent threat. That determination is evidence driven, not hashtag driven. Only the agent knows what he perceived when he fired.
None of that stopped politicians, activists, and headline merchants from sprinting past due process straight into narrative warfare. Sides were chosen instantly. Facts were optional. Emotions did the heavy lifting.
We have seen this movie before. In the Deep South, a mere accusation against a Black man was enough to justify lynching, followed by ritual acquittals by all-white juries. That was also a rush to judgment. It also produced injustice.
Today’s version wears better tailoring. Big-city mayors in blue states serve as de facto chiefs of police. They shape the narrative, influence investigative priorities, and decide which facts get oxygen. Political exploitation follows naturally.
The result is the same. Justice bends. Evidence waits. Emotions rule.
Americans could wait for the evidence, test competing narratives, and apply the standard of reasonable doubt. They will not. They never do. Outrage is faster. And history keeps rolling its eyes.
Comments