Staying Alive Comes First; Only Then Can There Be a Next Step: Reflections on the U.S. ICE Shooting Incident
English translation of the Chinese original (AI-assisted). Read the original in Chinese.
However one looks at this incident, it is a tragedy. A person is gone, and that fact alone is already heavy enough.
Most discussions naturally focus on whether law enforcement used excessive force, whether there are problems with the system, and whether power was abused. These discussions are not wrong; they are very important and deserve broad public attention.
But if we shift our position slightly—not standing in the comments section, not taking a side, but asking a more personal question:
If that moment had been me, would I have survived?
I hope we can ask ourselves this question.
⸻
The incident itself is actually not complicated.
The woman was not the target of the law-enforcement operation. She simply happened to be there.
The officers approached her vehicle with a clear operational objective.
From the videos that emerged later, the other party was not, in the full sense, "unidentified." From their clothing, movements, and the way they coordinated, these characteristics could be recognized when the footage was reviewed afterward.
This does not mean the person involved must have been calm, certain, and free of fear at the time. But at least this was not a situation in which there was "no way of knowing who the other party was."
Under these circumstances, she chose to start the vehicle and tried to leave.
Many people can still understand this reaction. Tension, pressure, and unease naturally make people want to get away as quickly as possible.
The problem is that, in that environment, this action was read by the other side as a different kind of signal.
What happened next entered a stage from which there was almost no way back.
⸻
Saying this is not meant to judge whether what she did was "right" or "wrong."
If we were actually sitting in that vehicle, no one could guarantee that they would make the perfect choice. Real people are not trained characters in a drill.
But there is one uncomfortable fact:
In a highly tense, confrontational law-enforcement situation, the other side will not wait for you to explain your motives.
What they see is not "what you are thinking," but "what you are doing."
⸻
Discussions like this are often avoided because they are easily misunderstood.
The moment you mention "the actions of the person involved," people may hear it as blame. The moment you say "if she had reacted differently," it may be taken as excusing a mistake.
But what many ordinary people actually care about is not these labels. What they are thinking is very simple:
If it were me, in this situation, what could I do to lower the risk?
⸻
Some risks cannot be removed by attitude alone.
In 2020, in this city, it was George Floyd.
In 2026, in this city, it was Renee Nicole Good.
When similar things have happened in the same place, it is no longer merely "possible"; it is a "known risk."
You can be innocent, you can be reasonable, and you can be an uninvolved third party caught up in the situation. But the system does not automatically lower its threshold for judgment because of these premises.
This is not a value judgment. It is simply how reality works.
In certain environments, not letting yourself be mistaken for "a variable that might spin out of control next" can sometimes matter more than proving that you "did nothing wrong."
Not because you do not have rights, but because only if you are alive do those rights have room to continue being discussed.
⸻
The law is a tool for after you survive. It is not a shield against a bullet before it is fired.
Many people are using "justice in the future" to offset "risk in the present." That is a calculation error.
⸻
So perhaps what this incident brings is not only anger and positions.
It also reminds us of some facts we would rather not face:
Risk does not disappear because of your moral position. At that moment, the power to judge is not in your hands. And survival requires "de-heroization."
These words are not suitable as slogans, but perhaps they are worth every ordinary person quietly thinking through once.
My own reflection from this incident is: when something similar happens, should I also be able to put my emotions aside first, give the other side space and time, and avoid having my actions and words misread?
As for the conclusion, everyone will have their own.