To the Editor:
Re “I’m the Mayor of Minneapolis. Trump Is Lying,” by Jacob Frey (Opinion guest essay, Jan. 10):
At some point, we have to ask ourselves as Americans whether we are willing to accept a country with no shared moral base line, no principle that rises above political affiliation.
Are we comfortable living in an America where a 37-year-old mother can be shot dead in the street and, almost immediately, have powerful figures justify it or attempt to construct an alternate reality that contradicts what we all plainly witnessed?
Are we comfortable living in an America where an insurrection that threatened our democracy is minimized, where foreign and domestic policymakers increasingly act as judge, jury and executioner, and where blatant misinformation is delivered from behind the White House logo?
These are not abstract concerns. They cut to the heart of whether we still agree on right and wrong, truth and falsehood, restraint and accountability.
We should be asking ourselves where the line is, and at what point we decide we simply will not tolerate the disregard for the democratic norms and human dignity that generations before us worked to preserve.
Red, purple or blue, the question is not about ideology. It’s about whether we can still come together to defend something as fundamental as basic decency.
Seth Schlussel San Francisco
To the Editor:
The killing of Renee Good by an ICE agent raises an urgent question: If the federal government won’t protect its citizens, when will the states step up? New York has ample but unused leverage to rein in ICE’s increasingly violent operations. It must act immediately to prevent escalating unrest.
Under the Anti-Commandeering Doctrine, a constitutional principle articulated in the Tenth Amendment, states cannot be compelled to assist federal law enforcement. This principle affords New York lawful tools, not to abolish ICE, but to refuse to enable conduct that endangers citizens.
The state could, for example, prohibit rental companies from renting cars to ICE without a judicial warrant, restrict hotels and short-term rentals from staging federal operations without oversight, bar New York-regulated companies from sharing sensitive data with ICE without a criminal warrant, or deny state contracts to entities that do business with ICE.
These measures do not conflict with federal criminal law, but they ensure New York does not facilitate dangerous and unaccountable ICE operations.
Alexander Thomson Ithaca, N.Y.
To the Editor:
The recent killing of Renee Good, a 37-year-old woman, by a federal officer in Minnesota demands careful legal scrutiny, not political slogans or emotional reactions.
Under well-established constitutional principles and longstanding federal case law, the use of deadly force by a government agent is justified only when there exists an immediate, objective and unavoidable threat to the life of the officer or others. That determination must rest on observable facts at the precise moment of force is used, not on subjective fear or speculative danger.
In cases where an officer stands only a few feet from a vehicle that is stationary or just beginning to move, basic physics, human reaction time and standard police training all indicate that reasonable avenues of evasion are typically available.
Federal courts have repeatedly held that an officer may not voluntarily place himself in the path of a vehicle and then rely on that self-created risk to justify lethal force. The threat must be truly imminent and not reasonably avoidable by other means.
This is not an ideological issue; it is a legal one.
Whether the constitutional limits on the use of deadly force were respected or violated public trust depends on those limits being applied rigorously, transparently and without exception.
When the state exercises its ultimate power, the burden of justification must be equally exacting.
Juan Carden St. Louis
To the Editor:
Re “Early Comments Cast Doubts Over ICE Inquiry” (news analysis, front page, Jan. 11):
JD Vance’s false claim that ICE agents have “absolute immunity” not only suggests agents have something to hide; it also reveals an ignorance of federal law.
Civil rights crimes perpetrated by ICE agents and their bosses are addressed specifically in Federal Statute 242, “Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law.”
In the Justice Department’s own language: Section 242 makes it a federal crime for a person “acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
If those acts lead to death that person, the statue says, punishment could include imprisonment or a death sentence. It offers no immunity.
Statute 242 was intended to protect Renee Good’s civil rights, and the F.B.I. has a responsibility to investigate possible deprivation of those rights. If F.B.I. officials refuse to investigate, wouldn’t they themselves be violating Statute 242, in depriving Ms. Good of the right to due process, as well as of one of her legal protections?
Mark Thurmond Kneeland, Calif.
To the Editor:
Re “Anti-Protests Spread Nationwide” (news article, nytimes.com, Jan. 11):
I understand that when video evidence has been presented to determine the truth of an incident, it’s important to present both sides.
But when your reporter writes that “conflicting interpretations of the killing — which was captured in video from several angles — divided the country along ideological lines,” an important distinction is lost.
Questions about policies, such as the value of the Affordable Care Act, may divide citizens along mostly partisan lines, but the fact that an unarmed American citizen was fatally shot by an ICE agent is not a policy.
To reduce this act to a matter of partisan differences implies that neither side has more facts to back up their contentions about the nature of the shooting. More important, it cheapens what is at stake.
Celia Viggo Wexler Alexandria, Va.
The post After the Fatal ICE Shooting, Hard Questions We Must Ask appeared first on New York Times.
