Before taking any side, it’s important to clearly establish what the recent ICE incident actually was, because much of the online debate has been driven by framing rather than facts.
This section lays out the incident without adopting Zeek Arkham’s interpretation and explains why many people reject his defense.
What Happened in Minneapolis
In early January 2026, agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement were conducting a federal enforcement operation in Minneapolis. The operation was active in a residential area.
A civilian woman, Renée Nicole Good, entered the area in her vehicle. She was not the target of the ICE operation.
According to publicly available information and video footage:
• Multiple armed federal agents approached her vehicle
• Commands were issued, but accounts differ on whether they were clear or consistent
• Good appeared panicked and attempted to leave the area in her car
At that point, an ICE agent fired multiple shots into the vehicle. Renée Good was killed.
Crucially, there is no clear video evidence showing that she struck or attempted to strike an officer. This is the central factual dispute.
Why This Incident Is Controversial
ICE and DHS initially claimed the woman used her vehicle as a weapon. That framing is what Zeek Arkham relies on in his defense.
However, Minnesota officials, local leaders, and many legal observers dispute that characterization:
• Video footage does not show an officer being hit
• The vehicle appears to be moving away, not directly at agents
• The woman was unarmed
• She was not attempting to assist a suspect or obstruct an arrest
Because of these discrepancies, the FBI took over the investigation, signaling that the use of deadly force is not being treated as routine or settled.
Where Zeek Arkham’s Argument Breaks Down
Zeek Arkham argues that any use of a vehicle near an officer justifies deadly force. That is an oversimplification of use of force policy.
Most law enforcement policies state that vehicles can be deadly force, not that they automatically are.
Key missing elements in Arkham’s framing:
• Imminence of threat must be clear
• Officer must reasonably believe they cannot safely disengage
• Deadly force is not justified solely to prevent escape
• The officer’s positioning matters
In this case, whether those standards were met is precisely what is being investigated.
The Strawman Comparison Issue
Arkham claims critics are making a strawman by comparing this case to the killing of Ashli Babbitt.
The issue is not that the cases are identical. The issue is selective reasoning.
Arkham condemns Babbitt’s shooting by arguing the officer faced no imminent threat, yet accepts ICE’s claim of threat here without clear evidence, despite similarly disputed circumstances.
That inconsistency is why critics accuse him of bad faith analysis rather than principled application of force standards.
Why Language Matters Here
Arkham’s rhetoric goes beyond policy discussion. Public threats, sexualized insults, and personal attacks on critics undermine any claim that he is engaging in sober legal analysis.
More importantly, that rhetoric distracts from the real issue:
Was deadly force necessary against an unarmed civilian who appeared to be trying to flee, not attack
That is the question investigators are examining, not whether cars can theoretically be dangerous.
Why This Case Matters
This incident is not about hating law enforcement or defending ICE at all costs. It is about limits.
• Limits on federal power
• Limits on deadly force during civil encounters
• Limits on how quickly “vehicle as weapon” claims are accepted without proof
If simply moving a car near armed agents is enough to justify execution, then the standard for lethal force has effectively collapsed.
Closing Perspective
You do not need to deny that vehicles can be dangerous to recognize that not every attempt to flee is an attempted homicide.
The Minneapolis ICE shooting remains under investigation because the facts are disputed, the video is unclear, and the official narrative is being challenged by local authorities.
That alone should make anyone cautious about the certainty with which Zeek Arkham is defending it.
The Immoral List 
Leave a comment