The recent tragedy involving Renee Good has highlighted a critical misunderstanding of civil disobedience in our society. Good’s death is a stark reminder that what some people claim as protest is often nothing more than criminal activity. Historical examples of civil disobedience, as practiced by figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., contained elements of dignity and a willingness to accept arrest for a cause. Their actions were designed to minimize harm, aiming instead to draw attention to injustice through peaceful means.
In contrast, today’s organized groups engaging in harassment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents represent a departure from these principles. The tactics employed—following, doxxing, and sometimes physically confronting law enforcement—go beyond protest. This behavior veers into the realm of crime. Good was reportedly a trained member of one such group. Instead of seeking to communicate a message through peaceful means, these individuals act with the intent to obstruct federal officials carrying out the law.
The difference between civil disobedience and the actions observed today lies in the intent and methodology. Civil disobedience is characterized by the willingness to face arrest, while current activities often embrace evasion and violence. What is being seen is not civil discourse but rather confrontations that escalate into dangerous situations. Such actions place both law enforcement and the public in harm’s way, raising alarming questions about whether these groups are engaging in criminal conspiracies.
Poll data reveals that only a fraction of the general public condones actions that exceed peaceful protest in response to ICE enforcement. However, that number dramatically increases among certain demographics, suggesting a troubling shift in societal norms. The alarming acceptance of these violent tactics among some groups shows a growing disconnect between civil disobedience and outright aggression.
This shift can be traced back to a broader pattern where infractions start small but can lead to larger, more dangerous confrontations. What may begin as minor offenses can snowball into serious threats against law enforcement, culminating in acts that jeopardize lives. The videos showing individuals mocking and provoking ICE officers reflect a disturbing trend towards normalizing hostility against those in uniform.
It is essential to recognize the responsibility of politicians and media figures in shaping the narrative around these actions. In a straightforward sense, no one should be engaging in violence against law enforcement officers, regardless of the context. The belief that such behavior is acceptable due to the perceived justness of a cause undermines the very foundation of civil society.
As political figures like Rep. Ilhan Omar incite crowds with rhetoric that implicitly encourages violent resistance, the potential consequences become dire. Such language not only endangers law enforcement but also places supporters of these causes at great risk. A society that stands by while the lines between protest and violence blur represents a failure to uphold the rule of law.
The weight of responsibility lies heavy. If prominent voices do not unequivocally condemn violence against law enforcement, they play a part in perpetuating a cycle of disorder. Enforcement of the law is paramount, and without it, there is a stark possibility that tragedies like Renee Good’s will not be isolated incidents but rather tragic examples of a society unraveling in its understanding of lawful dissent. The call for accountability in both action and rhetoric is urgent, as is the need to sharply delineate between civil engagement and criminality.
"*" indicates required fields
