Every time a federal enforcement shooting happens, the same pattern emerges: facts secondary, certainty instant, outrage filling the vacuum before investigations begin. Within hours, the story is fixed: enforcement is illegitimate, resistance is innocent, and context is optional.
The recent immigration incidents aren’t notable for simplicity — they’re notable for how quickly the public abandons reality for narrative.
Enforcement Isn’t Paperwork
People like to say, “Immigration enforcement is a civil function, not a battlefield operation.” It sounds humane. It’s misleading.
Immigration enforcement is federal law enforcement. Agents are armed. Interfering with them is a felony. When a vehicle is reasonably perceived as a weapon, it triggers standard use-of-force doctrine. Dislike of the agency doesn’t erase context.
Violence Toward Agents Is Part of Reality
ICE and federal immigration agents have faced repeated attacks this year while doing their jobs. Ignoring this context doesn’t make a conversation compassionate — it makes it dishonest. Threat awareness, prior encounters, and institutional memory shape decisions.
Stop Playing Hindsight Games
People replay videos endlessly, pause frames, argue angles, and declare how someone should have acted. Tire orientation arguments? Absurd. Agents under stress don’t have the luxury of paused, zoomed-in omniscience.
Seconds, partial visibility, stress, adrenaline — that’s the real environment. Expecting perfect perception in that moment is fantasy, not accountability.
Intent Matters
Civilians are framed as passively “accosted.” Resistance is reflexive. Escalation “just happens.” But it doesn’t. Interfering with agents isn’t neutral. Attempting to flee a stop isn’t morally weightless. Context doesn’t vanish because the agency is unpopular.
Obstruction Is Cultural
A large portion of the population now openly supports obstructing enforcement as a moral good. They film agents, block vehicles, and interfere with operations, treating obstruction not as a crime but as virtue. Then they act surprised when encounters escalate.
This doesn’t justify violence, but it explains why interactions are more tense, compressed, and dangerous.
An Uncomfortable Position
I’m not defending federal agencies. I want smaller, more accountable government. But half the conversation is so disingenuous that silence feels like agreement — especially after I felt compelled to speak in Sep. about earlier events.
From the first moments after the Minneapolis incident, people entrenched immediately. Verdicts issued, motives assigned. Asking for patience or evidence was treated as apologist behavior. Slowing down isn’t defending authority — it’s resisting tribal brain rot.
Civil Liberties Still Matter
My son accused the state of repeating Nazi Germany because people are being checked for citizenship. History should make us cautious, but collapsing modern enforcement into 1930s Germany isn’t insight — it’s emotional escalation.
I support the Fourth Amendment. Stop-and-frisk was wrong. People shouldn’t have to ID themselves in their homes absent a warrant. Those positions haven’t changed.
But civil liberties don’t require pretending enforcement is impossible. Sanctuary cities openly decline cooperation with federal law. That’s policy. When enforcement is blocked institutionally, it doesn’t disappear — it concentrates. In these areas, status checks during lawful encounters aren’t fascism or tyranny; they’re targeted enforcement shaped by deliberate decisions.
You can oppose dragnet policing and still accept lawful checks. You can defend the Fourth Amendment and recognize citizenship status as a legitimate legal question. Those positions aren’t contradictory — they’re adult.
Enforcement Was the Mandate
The current administration was elected explicitly on stronger enforcement after years of unprecedented illegal entry. This isn’t Ellis Island early 1900s. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make the conversation humane — it detaches it from reality.
When half the voting public votes for enforcement, an opposing portion obstructs enforcement, escalates encounters, and then acts shocked when force enters the picture? That’s incoherence, not moral clarity.
Accountability Requires Reality
This isn’t an argument that recent shootings were justified. It is an argument against declaring them unjustified before the facts exist.
Accountability requires evidence. Justice requires patience. Society requires separating skepticism from reflexive outrage.
When hindsight replaces reality and tribal loyalty replaces judgment, the rule of law doesn’t become more humane — it becomes theatrical, fragile, and selectively applied.
Mic G
Author’s Note
This piece wasn’t planned. It displaced several longer, more reflective articles I’d rather be publishing right now — work that isn’t tethered to breaking news or manufactured urgency.
But when public discourse collapses into reflex and tribal certainty, ignoring it starts to feel like complicity. Time-sensitive moments have a way of forcing themselves to the front of the line, even when they aren’t the most interesting or enduring subjects.
The shelved pieces will come. This one needed to be written now.
Life after door kicking. 
Leave a comment