Portland avenue is a a two lane road. It appears to me that Good was parked perpendicular to traffic, blocking at least one lane. I suspect, but have no evidence, that she was probably trying to block ICE agents (given the circumstances, I'm not sure why else she would have been doing it). Either way, if she was blocking traffic, I believe she initiated the conflict. I've seen videos from three different POVs. The first from behind her vehicle (the first that came out), another from a front angle but from further away, and the video from the ICE agent POV. From the back you don't really have good visibility. From the other two angles, you can see the ICE agent being struck by her vehicle (at least that is what it looks like to me). I never hear an ICE agent say move/drive away but I do hear one say "get the fuck out of the car" on two of the three videos (the other is too far away). It is also clear that the ICE agents have her at gunpoint. It appears both of these things should have been clear to Good as well. The ICE agent in front of her should have been fairly obvious too. Even if she didn't strike him, driving in the general direction of a law enforcement agent that has you at gunpoint after being ordered out of the car is going to get you shot more often than not. This isn't unique to ICE. I suspect ICE did tell her to leave, she didn't comply, then they ordered her out of the car. Assuming she was impeding traffic and/or ICE agents, she is ordered to move along and does not, who is escalating? Now, could ICE have been more patient? Could they have allowed more time to comply? Maybe...but where do you draw the line? And while I agree that using your gun should be a last resort, if you genuinely believe the person in front of you is about to run you down, would that not be a 'last resort'? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the ICE agent thought his life was in danger.

I absolutely agree that filming and protesting do not amount to obstruction. However, if you get in the way while doing either of those things, then it does. I also agree that ICE can't arbitrarily detain people though it's not clear to me that that is generally happening. Having said that, the burden of proof for law enforcement to stop you and ask for ID or detain you (any agency, not just ICE) is not extremely high. It's generally 'reasonable suspicion' that you have done, are doing, or will do something illegal.

While I have generally pretty libertarian views there are some realities that have to be acknowledged. I'm all for having as open an immigration system as reasonably possible. But given our current structure, you have to make sure of two things. First, that who you are letting in is not criminal and second that they aren't going to be a burden on the taxpayer. I think that if you don't do those things, uncontrolled immigration will lead to disaster. It's quite clear than mass illegal immigration is most definitely a burden on the taxpayer. Simply letting millions of people cross the border not even knowing who they are probably isn't the best plan in today's world.

I also think that a lot of this is a matter of manipulating feelings in the way it is covered. Obama deported more people than Trump has and of course used ICE to do it. I doubt there is a Democrat who believes that. It's just that Democrat controlled cities didn't resist when it was Obama doing it so there wasn't all this conflict (i.e. there was cooperation from local law enforcement and no protests).

At the end of the day, if we don't want to actually enforce the law, then why have it? Either we have to enforce immigration laws or get rid of immigration laws. The latter sounds like a great utopian ideal but seems unwise in the world we currently live in.

For the record, I voted for Trump one out of three times and do not in any way consider myself a MAGA fanatic though I do think he is probably slightly less bad than the next most likely alternative.