Comply or Die

What began as implication has now crossed into articulation. In the days following Renee Good’s killing, witnesses report ICE agents invoking her death to force compliance.

This is not metaphor. It is not overheated language. It is people describing encounters in which a civilian’s death is referenced as leverage, a lesson, a reminder of what happens when compliance falters.

Renee Good did not die in chaos or confusion. She was killed by someone’s choice.

She was unarmed.  She was confronted by two federal agents issuing contradictory commands.  One told her to move her car.  The other told her to get out of the car.

She could not comply with both commands at once.  She appeared calm. She smiled. She did not present a threat.  She was shot anyway.

This was civil immigration enforcement, carried out in a civilian setting, against a woman for whom compliance was impossible and irrelevant to the outcome.

What played out in that moment cannot be explained as confusion or split-second error. It reflects the power dynamics of male authority responding violently to perceived female defiance. An unarmed woman, calm and nonthreatening, did not behave in the way an armed man with state power expected. That mismatch, interpreted as defiance, was met not with restraint or clarification, but with lethal force. When violence is triggered by perception rather than danger, it stops being protective and becomes punitive.

The moment was punctuated by “Fuckin’ bitch” as her car crashed to a stop. Then medical care was denied, not because it was impossible, but because that was the agents’ final exercise of power.  Life-and-death decisions were made based on tone, attitude, and vibes.

After her death, independent investigation was blocked. Oversight was treated as interference. The system closed ranks.

Then the justification shifted.

When asked whether the lethal force was justified, the president did not cite law, necessity, or imminent threat. He blamed Renee Good for being “very, very disrespectful.”

That answer matters. “Disrespect” is not a legal standard. It is not part of any use-of-force doctrine. It does not justify killing. By reframing the shooting around demeanor instead of danger, leadership retroactively excused what could not be defended on legal grounds.

That reframing did not stay rhetorical.

That is coercion, not law enforcement.

This is where arguments about labels miss the point. You can debate terminology forever. What matters is the pattern:

A civilian is killed.  

Oversight is blocked.  

Blame is redirected downward.  

And the killing itself is then used to enforce obedience.

That is escalation.

When tone and perceived disrespect become the trigger for lethal force, compliance becomes impossible and irrelevant.

This is no longer about a trigger pull or a single bad decision. It is about a system that has learned it can use lethal force, shut down scrutiny, and then launder the outcome through rhetoric about tone and compliance. Once that lesson is absorbed, it doesn’t stay isolated. It spreads.

When death becomes a warning, compliance becomes the currency.  When obedience replaces legality, accountability becomes optional.  And when investigation is treated as a threat, power stops pretending it answers to anyone.

You can argue labels if you want. You can reassure yourself that this is exaggerated, temporary, or overheated.

But the facts are already on the table. A woman was killed. Oversight was blocked. Leadership justified the killing by blaming her demeanor. And agents are now invoking that death to force obedience in other encounters.

That is a line being crossed in real time.

Not ceremonially. Methodically. And with just enough official approval to make it stick.