Before Minneapolis was left to mourn the death of Renee Good, there was George Floyd.
Same town, same sorrow, same questions — what becomes of society when you can’t trust the authorities? What do you do when the people tasked with upholding the law break the rules, lie and even kill?
California is pushing to answer that question, with laws and legislation meant to combat what is increasingly a rogue federal police force that is seemingly acting, too often violently, without restraint. That’s putting it in the most neutral, least inflammatory terms.
“California has a solemn responsibility to lead and to use every lever of power that we have to protect our residents, to fight back against this administration and their violations of the law, and to set an example for other states about what is possible,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).
This month, California became the first state in the nation to ban masks on law enforcement officers with the No Secret Police Act, which Wiener wrote. The federal government quickly tied that new rule up in court, with the first hearing scheduled Wednesday in Los Angeles.
Now, Wiener and others are pushing for more curbs. A measure by state Assemblyman Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles) would ban our state and local officers from moonlighting for the feds — something they are currently allowed to do, though it is unclear how many take advantage of that loophole.
“Their tactics have been shameful,” Bryan recently said of immigration enforcement. He pointed out that when our local cops mask up and do immigration work after hours, it leads to a serious lack of trust in their day jobs.
Wiener also introduced another measure, the No Kings Act. It would open up a new path for citizens to sue federal agents who violate their constitutional rights, because although local and state authorities can be personally sued, the ability to hold a federal officer accountable in civil court is much narrower right now.
George Retes learned that the hard way. The Iraq war vet was dragged out of his car in Ventura County by federal agents last year. Although he is a U.S. citizen, agents sprayed him with chemicals, knelt on his neck and back despite pleas that he could not breathe, detained him, took his DNA and fingerprints, strip-searched him, denied him any ability to wash off the chemicals, held him for three days without access to help, then released him with no charges and no explanation, he said.
Currently, he has few options for holding those agents accountable.
“I just got to live with the experience that they put me through with no remedy, no resolution, no answer for anything that happened to me, and I get no justice,” Retes said, speaking at a news conference. “Everyone that’s going through this currently gets no justice.”
Weiner told me that the masks and casual aggression are “designed to create an atmosphere of fear and terror, and it is and it’s having that effect,” and that without state pushback, it will only get worse.
“If California can’t stand up to Trump, then who can?” he asked Tuesday.
Good’s wife describes her as being “made of sunshine” and standing up for her immigrant neighbors when she was shot, with her dog in the back seat and her glove box full of stuffed animals for her 6-year-old son. But you wouldn’t know that from the response of federal leaders, who quickly labeled her a “domestic terrorist” and dismissed the killing as self-defense — unworthy of even a robust investigation.
The use of masks and casual aggression is “designed to create an atmosphere of fear and terror, and … it’s having that effect,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), pictured in 2024.
(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)
“Every congressional democrat and every democrat who’s running for president should be asked a simple question: Do you think this officer was wrong in defending his life against a deranged leftist who tried to run him over?” Vice President JD Vance wrote on social media one day after Good was killed.
So much for law enforcement accountability.
While Good’s death is filling headlines, there have been dozens of other instances where immigration officers’ use of force has been questionable. The Trace, an independent news source that covers gun violence, found that since the immigration crackdown began, ICE has opened fire 16 times, held people at gunpoint an additional 15 times, killed four people and injured seven.
One of those deaths was in Northridge, where Keith Porter Jr. was shot and killed by an off-duty ICE agent a few weeks ago, and his family is rightfully calling for an investigation.
That’s just the gun violence. Lots of other concerning behavior has been documented as well.
A 21-year-old protester was left with a fractured skull and blind in one eye last week in Southern California after an officer from the Department of Homeland Security fired a nonlethal round at close range toward his head. Most officers are taught, and even forbidden by policy, from firing such munitions at people’s heads for precisely this reason — they can be dangerous and even fatal if used incorrectly.
Across California, and the nation, citizens and noncitizens alike have reported being beaten and harassed, having guns pointed at them without provocation and being detained without basic rights for days.
The answer to police overreach in Floyd’s case was a reckoning in law enforcement that it needed to do better to build trust in the communities it was policing. Along with that came a nationwide push, especially in California, for reforms that would move local and state policing closer to that ideal.
The answer five years later in Good’s case — from our president, our vice president, our head of Homeland Security and others — has been to double down on impunity with the false claim that dissent is radical, and likely even a crime. And don’t fool yourself — this is exactly how President Trump sees it, as laid out in his recent executive order that labeled street-level protests as “antifa” and designated that nebulous anti-fascist movement as an organized terrorist group. He’s also set up National Guard units in every state to deal with “civil disturbances.”
So Vance is actually right — under Trump law, which is seemingly being enforced although not truly law, someone like Good could be dubbed a terrorist.
The situation has become so dire that this week six federal prosecutors resigned after the Justice Department pushed not to investigate Good’s shooting, but instead investigate Good herself — a further bid to bolster the egregious terrorist claim.
In the wake of Good’s killing, many of us feel the fear that no one is safe, an increasingly unsubtle pressure to self-censure dissent. Is it worth it to protest? Maybe for our safety and the safety of those we love, we should stay home. We just don’t know what federal authorities will do, what will happen if we speak out.
That’s the thinking that authoritarians seek to instill in the populace as they consolidate power. Just duck and cover, and maybe you won’t be the one to get hurt.
That’s why, successful or not, these new and proposed laws in California are fights the state must have for the safety of our residents, regardless of immigration status, and for the safety of democracy.
Because, truly, if California can’t stand up to Trump, who can?
Commentary: ICE can’t be trusted. Can California force accountability?
Before Minneapolis was left to mourn the death of Renee Good, there was George Floyd.
Same town, same sorrow, same questions — what becomes of society when you can’t trust the authorities? What do you do when the people tasked with upholding the law break the rules, lie and even kill?
California is pushing to answer that question, with laws and legislation meant to combat what is increasingly a rogue federal police force that is seemingly acting, too often violently, without restraint. That’s putting it in the most neutral, least inflammatory terms.
“California has a solemn responsibility to lead and to use every lever of power that we have to protect our residents, to fight back against this administration and their violations of the law, and to set an example for other states about what is possible,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).
This month, California became the first state in the nation to ban masks on law enforcement officers with the No Secret Police Act, which Wiener wrote. The federal government quickly tied that new rule up in court, with the first hearing scheduled Wednesday in Los Angeles.
Now, Wiener and others are pushing for more curbs. A measure by state Assemblyman Isaac G. Bryan (D-Los Angeles) would ban our state and local officers from moonlighting for the feds — something they are currently allowed to do, though it is unclear how many take advantage of that loophole.
“Their tactics have been shameful,” Bryan recently said of immigration enforcement. He pointed out that when our local cops mask up and do immigration work after hours, it leads to a serious lack of trust in their day jobs.
Wiener also introduced another measure, the No Kings Act. It would open up a new path for citizens to sue federal agents who violate their constitutional rights, because although local and state authorities can be personally sued, the ability to hold a federal officer accountable in civil court is much narrower right now.
George Retes learned that the hard way. The Iraq war vet was dragged out of his car in Ventura County by federal agents last year. Although he is a U.S. citizen, agents sprayed him with chemicals, knelt on his neck and back despite pleas that he could not breathe, detained him, took his DNA and fingerprints, strip-searched him, denied him any ability to wash off the chemicals, held him for three days without access to help, then released him with no charges and no explanation, he said.
Currently, he has few options for holding those agents accountable.
“I just got to live with the experience that they put me through with no remedy, no resolution, no answer for anything that happened to me, and I get no justice,” Retes said, speaking at a news conference. “Everyone that’s going through this currently gets no justice.”
Weiner told me that the masks and casual aggression are “designed to create an atmosphere of fear and terror, and it is and it’s having that effect,” and that without state pushback, it will only get worse.
“If California can’t stand up to Trump, then who can?” he asked Tuesday.
Good’s wife describes her as being “made of sunshine” and standing up for her immigrant neighbors when she was shot, with her dog in the back seat and her glove box full of stuffed animals for her 6-year-old son. But you wouldn’t know that from the response of federal leaders, who quickly labeled her a “domestic terrorist” and dismissed the killing as self-defense — unworthy of even a robust investigation.
The use of masks and casual aggression is “designed to create an atmosphere of fear and terror, and … it’s having that effect,” says state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), pictured in 2024.
(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)
“Every congressional democrat and every democrat who’s running for president should be asked a simple question: Do you think this officer was wrong in defending his life against a deranged leftist who tried to run him over?” Vice President JD Vance wrote on social media one day after Good was killed.
So much for law enforcement accountability.
While Good’s death is filling headlines, there have been dozens of other instances where immigration officers’ use of force has been questionable. The Trace, an independent news source that covers gun violence, found that since the immigration crackdown began, ICE has opened fire 16 times, held people at gunpoint an additional 15 times, killed four people and injured seven.
One of those deaths was in Northridge, where Keith Porter Jr. was shot and killed by an off-duty ICE agent a few weeks ago, and his family is rightfully calling for an investigation.
That’s just the gun violence. Lots of other concerning behavior has been documented as well.
A 21-year-old protester was left with a fractured skull and blind in one eye last week in Southern California after an officer from the Department of Homeland Security fired a nonlethal round at close range toward his head. Most officers are taught, and even forbidden by policy, from firing such munitions at people’s heads for precisely this reason — they can be dangerous and even fatal if used incorrectly.
Across California, and the nation, citizens and noncitizens alike have reported being beaten and harassed, having guns pointed at them without provocation and being detained without basic rights for days.
The answer to police overreach in Floyd’s case was a reckoning in law enforcement that it needed to do better to build trust in the communities it was policing. Along with that came a nationwide push, especially in California, for reforms that would move local and state policing closer to that ideal.
The answer five years later in Good’s case — from our president, our vice president, our head of Homeland Security and others — has been to double down on impunity with the false claim that dissent is radical, and likely even a crime. And don’t fool yourself — this is exactly how President Trump sees it, as laid out in his recent executive order that labeled street-level protests as “antifa” and designated that nebulous anti-fascist movement as an organized terrorist group. He’s also set up National Guard units in every state to deal with “civil disturbances.”
So Vance is actually right — under Trump law, which is seemingly being enforced although not truly law, someone like Good could be dubbed a terrorist.
The situation has become so dire that this week six federal prosecutors resigned after the Justice Department pushed not to investigate Good’s shooting, but instead investigate Good herself — a further bid to bolster the egregious terrorist claim.
In the wake of Good’s killing, many of us feel the fear that no one is safe, an increasingly unsubtle pressure to self-censure dissent. Is it worth it to protest? Maybe for our safety and the safety of those we love, we should stay home. We just don’t know what federal authorities will do, what will happen if we speak out.
That’s the thinking that authoritarians seek to instill in the populace as they consolidate power. Just duck and cover, and maybe you won’t be the one to get hurt.
That’s why, successful or not, these new and proposed laws in California are fights the state must have for the safety of our residents, regardless of immigration status, and for the safety of democracy.
Because, truly, if California can’t stand up to Trump, who can?
Source link