alt.hn

6/25/2026 at 2:16:17 PM

Federal agents track down woman, demand she remove Instagram post about ICE

 https://www.syracuse.com/news/2026/06/federal-agents-track-down-syracuse-woman-demand-she-remove-instagram-post-about-ice.html

by coloneltcb

6/25/2026 at 2:27:29 PM

The content of the post deemed by ICE to warrant ~~federal prosecution~~ crime-boss-style intimidation:

> BREAKING: The ICE agent who shot and killed Renee Good in broad daylight has been identified as Jonathan Ross by the Minnesota Star Tribune. I think today is a great day for Johnathan to be indicted!

If anyone is wondering, it would still be a good day : )

by conartist6

6/25/2026 at 2:47:32 PM

I don’t read the Minnesota Star and hadn’t seen any of this, so, if anything the Feds doxxed their own by bringing it to my attention.

by laweijfmvo

6/25/2026 at 4:08:18 PM

Streisand!

by skeledrew

6/25/2026 at 2:48:35 PM

_in a polling place_ no less

by mattnewton

6/25/2026 at 3:30:06 PM

I see they were invited in by the person they wanted to intimidate, so that she wouldn't be alone, and there were no voters present. "Better judgement" would have been to not invite them and to not accept the invitation, but after the fact I could say it's preferable to the alternative. The person who decided to take action against this lady should be fired though.

by axus

6/25/2026 at 3:07:40 PM

Maybe you should ask them for an ID to make sure they belong there.

by panny

6/25/2026 at 3:01:46 PM

[flagged]

by LightHugger

6/25/2026 at 3:30:10 PM

> Renee Good tried to run over a cop

First, your disrespectful lower casing of her name shows exactly who you are and what you are trying to do.

Second, no, she did not. We all have seen the videos from every angle. Jonathan Ross, the murderer, was not in danger.

I agree, the lack of accountability of ICE agents abusing their power and murdering US citizens is ridiculous.

by hightrix

6/25/2026 at 8:03:49 PM

> Jonathan Ross, the murderer, was not in danger.

It's worth pointing out that there is an even stronger point on which to hang our hats. Even if Jonathan Ross "felt he was in danger", he was only in that situation due to his own actions of how he himself approached the vehicle, in deliberate violation of explicitly written ICE policy. In fact he had previously tried to stop a car with his own body in a different incident, and had ended up being dragged for quite some time. These signs point to him having deliberately created a pretext to simply execute the next person who might try to drive away from him. In other words, this was an execution with premeditated intent.

by mindslight

6/25/2026 at 7:36:59 PM

> Jonathan Ross, the murderer

Not just a murderer, but a state-sanctioned executioner and fascist.

by rekabis

6/25/2026 at 3:28:04 PM

> Rene good deserved her concequences 100% though what a piece of shit person.

Serious question - wtf is wrong with you?

by noboostforyou

6/25/2026 at 6:44:38 PM

They have decided that hate of the other is more important than love of their nation. That sort of degenerate value system demands that they not only throw away their decency, but do so loudly and publicly to virtue signal their loyalty to the regime and willingness to disregard the truth that is in front of our eyes.

by solid_fuel

6/25/2026 at 8:35:53 PM

People are so cavalier about saying atrocious things online these days. The nice thing is that these comments are forever. They will never escape their words.

by tastyface

6/25/2026 at 3:31:47 PM

[flagged]

by LightHugger

6/25/2026 at 3:35:36 PM

"assaulting a cop with your car" as if she wasn't trying to simply leave the area and had her tires turned completely away from the cop who proceeds to shoot her in the head.

> innocent people

I must have missed the trial where she was found guilty, when did that happen? Oh wait...

Either way, you're celebrating the extra-judicial execution of a citizen and think that's normal behavior. You sound like the violent person here.

by noboostforyou

6/25/2026 at 4:36:59 PM

> who proceeds to shoot her in the head.

From the side.

by exe34

6/25/2026 at 3:05:56 PM

You do realize that's a politically motivated account of actions that has never been subjected to any kind of cross-examination.

I want a trial to know if this was a murder or a law enforcement action or self-defense. I should not be expected to decide PERSONALLY, I'm supposed to have a justice system that does that.

by conartist6

6/25/2026 at 3:11:45 PM

What I heard is that she attempted to drive a way in a direction that would have made no physical contact with the officer, but the vehicle started to slip sideways on ice and travel in the direction of the officer.

If this is all true, the officer might likely be acquitted at trial, as the only necessary justification for such force is that the officer have any reason to fear for their life.

But THERE SHOULD BE A TRIAL. What I have heard from those who have studied the available forensic evidence is that Renee Good never intended to do anything but drive away, which may or may not have been legal but is not (necessarily) attempted murder, nor alone cause for an instant death penalty.

There should be a trial if for no other reason than to clear the name of Renee Good, who you are accusing of a heinous crime

by conartist6

6/25/2026 at 3:25:43 PM

You don't have to 'hear' anything. If you watch the video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNbHlmZVmAw for example (0:55), you see that the tires are turned completely away from the murderer, who fires shots directly into her even though he is obviously not in danger of being seriously harmed.

by felixgallo

6/25/2026 at 3:14:18 PM

[flagged]

by LightHugger

6/25/2026 at 3:21:47 PM

It's scary that you bring up the question of whether Rene Good was under arrest or not at the time she was killed. As if it were legal or justified to execute people for failing to cooperate with their own arrest. It's scary because you're not the only person who believes this - many in ICE and other police agencies hold this belief, and by repeating it you encourage them to kill again.

by thecrash

6/25/2026 at 3:25:42 PM

[flagged]

by LightHugger

6/25/2026 at 3:36:24 PM

Yeah I get that. I understand that a car is really a deadly weapon, and the officer in a split second could not know for sure if the intent was to attack.

But the question of whether Renee decided to do manslaughter in her last seconds is still critically important to Renee

by conartist6

6/25/2026 at 3:33:54 PM

> violently attacking someone

Jonathan Ross is the only person in that interaction that violently attacked someone resulting in death.

by hightrix

6/25/2026 at 3:16:25 PM

again a legal defense would contest your claim that there was intent to attack

by conartist6

6/25/2026 at 3:29:23 PM

[flagged]

by LightHugger

6/25/2026 at 2:37:22 PM

[flagged]

by fc417fc802

6/25/2026 at 2:45:44 PM

But she didn't dox him - per the quote above, the Minnesota Star released his name. She simply restated what was reported.

And that's before we consider the absurdity of making the names of federally-sanctioned killers private. They should all be wearing name tags and ID numbers.

And she didn't actually do what the agents claimed in their letter to her:

“This notice officially informs you that it is unlawful to threaten to assault, kidnap, and/or murder a federal official or that federal official’s immediate family member with the intent to impede, intimidate, and/or interfere with the federal official’s duties or retaliate against a federal official due to the performance of their duties."

She did none of the above. She only said "This is his name. Would be nice if he was indicted." That's not a threat - she's not in a position to indict him or sway a DA towards indictment. His family wasn't mentioned. There was no impeding of his work,

by alistairSH

6/25/2026 at 2:48:05 PM

I'm having a hard time reading your sarcasm level here so I'm going to assume its around 85%.

by conartist6

6/25/2026 at 8:49:25 PM

Yeah I'm pretty disappointed in the HN readership here. Anyone interpreting that as serious needs to stop and reflect on his own mental state I think.

by fc417fc802

6/25/2026 at 2:54:27 PM

It is widely reported and posted around the internet that Jonathan Ross murdered Rene Good while acting in official duties as an ICE agent.

There is no conspiracy here.

by hightrix

6/25/2026 at 5:52:02 PM

What does “dox” mean in your eyes? Releasing public information?

by iAMkenough

6/25/2026 at 2:43:52 PM

Ah yes illegal according to those laws handed down by the king.

by sanex

6/25/2026 at 2:48:16 PM

This kind of intimidation sucks and I'd like to see individual officers who indulge in it lose their qualified immunity and be prosecuted for it.

But I'm at least grateful to live under a regime that needs to break its own laws to do this, and so such charges can be dismissed by courts that follow the law, even if they don't apply consequences to the offending officials. Compare that to the UK where more than 12k people were arrested for social media posts in 2023 alone and where it is fully permitted under the law with great discretion and supported by the courts.

It's a bit like "my husband is better than yours because he doesn't beat me as hard", but it's something.

by delichon

6/25/2026 at 5:33:09 PM

The 12k number is an estimate, and only 1k were convicted. And the law they're being charged with breaking covers things like threats to assault someone, false bomb threats, harassment of ex-partners, threats sent to MPs, serious domestic abuse-related crimes, etc. There's no breakdown of what each charge was for.

If you make a bomb threat or threaten to kill someone else over social media, you really should get arrested and prosecuted because that isn't an exercise of "first amendment rights".

by dualvariable

6/25/2026 at 2:56:28 PM

Given the costs of defending a federal case start at the five figs and the typical naughty tweets style offense nets community service at worst, I’m not so sure.

by lux-lux-lux

6/25/2026 at 5:15:57 PM

in what world do you think they would actually be prosecuted?

by rambojohnson

6/25/2026 at 2:54:30 PM

Which of the 12K arrests do you not agree with? Or are you saying people should be free to write whatever they want on social media with no repercussions?

by Steve16384

6/25/2026 at 4:26:43 PM

Saying what you want about the government without fear of reprecussion or intimidation or consequence from the government is literally in the constitution. Very specifically for this situation.

This isn't a "freespeach" argument, this is the actual text of the actual constitution. This is the actual literal reason that line is included in the bill of rights. It is explicit constitutional law that the government cannot punish you for criticizing the government.

There are a ton of exceptions to our right to free speech, but this is not one.

by vitally3643

6/25/2026 at 5:30:31 PM

Most of those aren't about the government, those are people using social media to threaten their ex and so on.

by pjc50

6/25/2026 at 3:33:47 PM

>Or are you saying people should be free to write whatever they want on social media with no repercussions?

no repercussions from the government, yes, people should be free to write whatever they want

by bryceacc

6/25/2026 at 10:06:50 PM

I don't think this is actually your view, though. I can't imagine that you think harassment or violent threats are things that should have no repercussions.

by matthewmacleod

6/25/2026 at 3:35:29 PM

Most countries in the West have higher threshold to arrest someone over social media posts. Some actually much, much higher.

12K is just a ridiculous number and indicates that the UK indeed has a free speech problem. I don't think that in my country there were more like ~ 20 actual arrests over the same problem during the same period.

Even if you agree with prosecuting people for speech, why exactly would you arrest them and drag them to prison/jail? Even here in Europe, this is a sort of offense that usually results in a suspended sentence or a fine, and a physical arrest is absolutely unnecessary, unless there is a good suspicion that that person is going to harm some concrete people at a concrete time.

In a more liberal country, even if prosecution over an utterance takes place, it usually happens without arrests, simply by asking the culprit to come to a police station and explain themselves, later the same in front of a court. There just isn't any need for physical restraining of that person, it is just intimidation.

by inglor_cz

6/26/2026 at 8:15:29 PM

The 12K figure is the total figure for arrests for Malicious Communications offenses. It's not a figure for social media posts specifically. The vast majority of these arrests have nothing to do with people making edgy social media posts. They're arrests for personal threats, harassment, stalking, etc. etc.

I think a lot of people assume by default that other European countries have fewer (or less egregious) arrests for social media posts just because the American right isn't boosting the relevant stories. But if you Google, you'll find some pretty wild instances of arrests for social media posts in lots of other European countries. Here are some examples.

In Spain you can be arrested for insulting the King: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pablo_Has%C3%A9l [No, he didn't just insult the King, but that is one of the crimes he was charged with.]

In Germany you can be arrested for being rude about civil servants: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/german-police-raid-home-of-s...

In France, you can be convicted (not just arrested) for posting a non-doctored photo that makes some policemen look bad: https://www.amnesty.ie/france-criminal-conviction-for-a-twee...

In the Czech Republic, you can be convicted for making rude posts about Ukranians: https://www.newsendip.com/in-czech-republic-two-men-guilty-o... And if you're a communist, that's too bad, because it's illegal to express support for communist ideology (on social media or anywhere else).

In Italy, you can be fined for mocking the President's height: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italian-journalist-orde...

All of these (with the exception of some of the non-King-related charges in the Spanish case) are pretty clearly instances where someone would not be arrested – and would certainly not be convicted – in the UK. But you won't find out about these cases from Elon Musk's X feed. And of course, people do get arrested and jailed for social media posts even in the land of the free, from time to time:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/12/17/politics/retired-cop-jail...

See also this article for some more context on the '12K' claim: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/tommy-robinson-uk-speech-cla...

by foldr

6/25/2026 at 2:27:24 PM

I know in CA it is a violation of election law for an armed law enforcement officer to enter a vote center unless they are responding to an incident or there to vote.

by lokar

6/25/2026 at 2:31:55 PM

And what are the consequences if they do it anyway?

by mingus88

6/25/2026 at 2:44:23 PM

That, in my opinion, is the question of the era for the USA. We were taught that the rule of law prevailed and there are "checks and balances" but it seems like there is no prescibed way to enforce the rules inside the system.

by lebuffon

6/25/2026 at 4:30:59 PM

USA is trending towards right is might.

by nojvek

6/25/2026 at 8:01:03 PM

> what are the consequences if they do it anyway?

State AGs seem to have collectively shrugged. But theoretically, a state charging a federal officer with unlawful conduct is precedented.

by JumpCrisscross

6/25/2026 at 2:38:24 PM

Whose gonna call the cops on the cops?

by reactordev

6/25/2026 at 4:11:22 PM

Different cops. We had sheriff’s deputies out for some other issue, my impression was they took the law pretty seriously. They may not arrest them on the spot, but I think they would get ID and tell them to leave, and later file a report.

by lokar

6/25/2026 at 5:54:22 PM

Unfortunately due to chain of command, your good sheriffs deputies will be prevented from carrying out justice.

by iAMkenough

6/25/2026 at 6:50:56 PM

How so? If some ICE agents show up the sheriff and state police can certainly deal with them.

by lokar

6/25/2026 at 8:04:36 PM

Like they did in Minneapolis? No, federal officers will always “out law” your local law enforcement.

by reactordev

6/25/2026 at 8:45:20 PM

This situation there was very different

by lokar

6/25/2026 at 4:07:48 PM

aka "who watches the watchmen?"

by kingleopold

6/25/2026 at 4:11:14 PM

Exactly

by reactordev

6/25/2026 at 2:48:44 PM

are the cops gonna do anything? just start a mini civil war in someone’s garage?

by laweijfmvo

6/25/2026 at 2:46:22 PM

These days, I would guess a "tsk-tsk" is said to them.

The States need to grow a pair and start arresting these agents who break the law.

by jmclnx

6/25/2026 at 4:51:02 PM

“Grow a pair” presumes the state isn’t actively achieving its goals through these actions.

It’s a big club, and we ain’t in it.

by 35fbe7d3d5b9

6/25/2026 at 2:33:59 PM

[flagged]

by panny

6/25/2026 at 2:36:07 PM

It's illegal to do a lot of things that didn't actually happen.

by atomic_cowprod

6/25/2026 at 2:44:27 PM

Are you sure about that? Things that didn't happen in the US but did happen in [insert corrupt any country] should be prevented. Even things that only happen in books/movies should still be prevented early just in case.

by bluGill

6/25/2026 at 2:37:51 PM

It's also a violation of election law to administer a voting location in the nude.

by tremon

6/25/2026 at 8:08:30 PM

Not in Portland.

by mindslight

6/25/2026 at 2:35:31 PM

I wonder how far we are away from people being arrested for holding up blank pieces of paper.

by fanatic2pope

6/25/2026 at 2:39:09 PM

Happened in 2023 in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_paper_protest

by dgellow

6/25/2026 at 2:50:05 PM

The UK case involved him being "lead away" by police and "detained" when he returned and spoke so not really an arrest for holding up a blank piece of paper. Not good by any means, but not quite "for holding up a blank piece of paper". The other UK case was about a threat of arrest if he wrote on the paper - that is under the law that bans protests in Parliament Square. Again, not good, but not for holding up a blank piece of paper.

by graemep

6/25/2026 at 2:56:11 PM

I thought detainment was a lighter kind of arrest. Seems that I’m wrong and they are distinct concepts (I’m not too familiar with the English terminology here, my bad)

by dgellow

6/25/2026 at 4:12:46 PM

When someone is detained, they're just a person of interest wanted for questioning. When they're arrested, it's because they've actually been charged for something.

by skeledrew

6/26/2026 at 2:27:54 PM

Its more complex than that. Arrest is fairly straightforward, but you can be arrested and released without charge (e.g. Peter Mandelson was).

Detaining is not something I really understanding, but from what I have read it is using restraint of some sort without arrest and not really something police seem to have any special powers to do (whereas their powers of arrest are greater than those of other people).

by graemep

6/25/2026 at 2:52:24 PM

The facts in your link contradict your post

by mrhottakes

6/25/2026 at 2:37:46 PM

I mean, if we are going to go after people for their tweets and posts, there’s a social network that needs crawling…

by reactordev

6/25/2026 at 4:12:50 PM

Or praying silently to yourself in a No Praying Zone!

by trelane

6/25/2026 at 4:54:42 PM

The US regime's effort to avoid any culpability for killing American citizens is very concerning.

by josefritzishere

6/25/2026 at 9:50:27 PM

I remember the good ole days when the White House would coordinate with former employees that got jobs with SV companies in their "online safety" orgs and would just ban or shadowban people. Less legally suspect because it was action by private companies.

by paleotrope

6/25/2026 at 7:35:24 PM

How is this anything other than a flagrant violation of her constitutional right to free speech? This is the government suppressing her speaking the name of the executioner, which was already publicly published.

If I was her, I would be launching a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the government for a violation of constitutional rights.

by rekabis

6/25/2026 at 8:59:53 PM

Was it against the law for them to ASK that she remove her post? In essence, it was a request, coupled with an unrelated statement about the illegality of interfering with federal officers. Yes, it was an attempt to intimidate her, but she recognized it for what it was and did not cave in.

Doxxing has many forms, and I agree that she did nothing wrong by citing the news source with the officers name, and offering her opinion. They did not detain or arrest her, and she agreed, and even invited them to speak with her.

This whole thing is a non-story.

by anonymousiam

6/26/2026 at 1:13:18 AM

> Was it against the law for them to ASK

> Yes, it was an attempt to intimidate her

You've answered your own question

by anonymous_user9

6/25/2026 at 5:09:40 PM

More broadly, across various instances, the administration and feds have been coming out strongly against basic freedom of speech which is a core constitutional pillar that defines America. It is highly unAmerican.

Meanwhile, the crook in charge keeps doing everything he can to keep his cronies rich, at the expense of the planet's climate. Those who voted for him continue to remain utterly uninformed of the tornadoes and floods they sow.

by OutOfHere

6/25/2026 at 9:40:12 PM

She claims that the post with his name is the one that triggered the visit.

by paleotrope

6/26/2026 at 2:00:58 AM

When is the tipping point?

by NuclearPM

6/25/2026 at 2:43:55 PM

[flagged]

by profdevloper

6/25/2026 at 9:06:30 PM

[flagged]

by JuniperMesos

6/26/2026 at 2:09:29 AM

"reasonable" is for a jury to decide.

in the context of being charged with a crime, his name should be released. just like everyone elses.

by budman1

6/25/2026 at 9:29:21 PM

Reasonable???

by sleight42

6/25/2026 at 9:29:37 PM

7 hours old and not flagged? Amazing.

by sleight42