One Can Be Right—and Dead Right: The Madness of Fighting ICE in the Street

How Performative Outrage, Misinformation, and Street Activism Turn Political Disagreement Into Self-Destruction

Introduction

There’s an old saying that gets less poetic when you watch it play out in real time: you can be right—and dead right.

That line fits the current “fight ICE” street posture like a glove.

Whatever someone thinks about immigration policy, physically confronting federal agents who are executing an enforcement action is one of the dumbest trades a human being can make: you’re swapping symbolism for felonies, injuries, and—sometimes—death.

And yes, I’m going to say what plenty of regular people are thinking but the commentariat keeps dancing around: a chunk of what we’re seeing doesn’t look like spontaneous neighborhood concern. It looks like organized activism, fast-mobilized, message-disciplined, and in some cases fueled by misinformation that spreads faster than facts. The “paid protesters” claim is floating everywhere, and I’ll get to that—because there’s a lot of smoke, a lot of mirrors, and now a lot of AI-generated garbage designed to make everyone angrier.

But before we argue motives, let’s start with reality.

A federal agent isn’t a debate partner. A street confrontation isn’t a policy seminar. And a crowd surge around armed law enforcement isn’t “community care.” It’s a use-of-force scenario with a countdown timer.

Protest is legal. Interference is not.

America protects protest. You can chant, march, hold signs, film, criticize, organize, donate, publish, sue, and vote.

What you do not get to do is physically obstruct federal officers in the performance of their duties. That crosses into interference, and it comes with real legal teeth.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 111, it’s a federal crime to “forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere” with certain federal officers while they’re performing official duties.

Notice the word that matters: forcibly. The Department of Justice guidance emphasizes that “force” is an essential element of the crime, and the statute has been applied to more than just Hollywood-style “punching an agent” scenarios.

So when people swarm a vehicle, block an exit, grab equipment, shove barriers, throw objects, or rush an arrest to “stop” it, that’s not a protest anymore.

That’s a decision to turn yourself into the incident.

And the state has a massive advantage in incidents.

Minneapolis shows what this looks like when it goes wrong

If you want a recent, ugly example of what happens when street theater collides with federal enforcement, look at Minneapolis.

In January 2026, Minneapolis became ground zero for national outrage after two U.S. citizens were fatally shot during encounters involving federal immigration agents amid a surge operation.  The situation spiraled into a toxic mix of protests, official statements, counterclaims, and public distrust.

That’s the point too many activists refuse to accept: the “narrative” you think you’re writing is not the same thing as the physical reality unfolding on the street. Once bodies collide, everything becomes confusion. People scream.

Someone trips. Someone reaches. Someone thinks they saw a weapon. Someone panics. And suddenly you’re not holding a moral sign—you’re watching paramedics.

Even the legal aftermath is messy. Reuters has published an explainer on whether agents could be prosecuted in Minneapolis shooting cases, underscoring how high the legal bars can be and how long investigations can take.

So if your plan is: “We’ll physically stop ICE and force a better policy,” Minneapolis is your reality check. The end state is not “policy reform.” The end state is funerals, lawsuits, and a country that trusts nothing.

The “right—and dead right” principle isn’t political. It’s practical.

Here’s the simple math:

If you rush an armed officer, you are betting your life on their restraint, their training, their judgment, and their perception under stress.

Sometimes you win that bet.

Sometimes you don’t.

And the people who don’t win it are always the same: the ones who confuse moral certainty with physical invincibility.

The phrase “I’m right” has never stopped a baton, a beanbag, pepper spray, a Taser, or a bullet. It has never stopped handcuffs. It has never stopped a federal indictment. It has never stopped a prosecutor from stacking charges.

Being right is not a shield. Being right is not armor. Being right is a feeling. Reality doesn’t care about your feelings.

“They’re just doing their jobs” is true—and still not the whole argument

Let’s be honest and adult at the same time.

Yes: ICE is a federal agency tasked with enforcing federal immigration law. Agents are executing authority granted by the government, and street-level agents are not writing immigration statutes.

Also true: immigration enforcement can be controversial, uneven, and politically weaponized.

But here’s what’s also true: none of that justifies physical interference in the moment of enforcement.

If you think a law is unjust, the civilized answer is to change the law, challenge it in court, and vote for leaders who will adjust priorities. The uncivilized answer is to start street fights with federal agents and call it righteousness.

One approach builds legitimacy. The other burns it.

The “criminals” argument: DHS highlights the worst, opponents highlight the best

This is where the public discussion gets dishonest.

On one side, DHS communications often frame enforcement as targeting the “worst of the worst,” sometimes with dramatic percentage claims about assaults and threats against officers.  On the other side, advocacy groups and researchers argue that the net is widening and that growing shares of detainees and arrestees have no criminal convictions—depending on how “criminal” is defined (convictions vs. charges vs. immigration violations).

Both sides cherry-pick because cherry-picking wins news cycles.

What does this mean in plain English?

It means you often don’t know who is being arrested when you see a video clip. It might be someone with a serious violent record. It might be someone with a traffic case. It might be someone with no conviction at all. And it might be a mix, depending on the operation.

So when protesters physically attack agents to “defend” someone they don’t actually know, they are acting on a story, not facts.

Why attacking ICE is a moral performance—and a strategic failure

Let’s assume the most charitable version of the protester mindset:

They believe the enforcement system is unjust. They believe people are being treated unfairly. They believe the government is abusing power. They believe urgency requires confrontation.

Even if all of that is sincerely believed, the tactic still fails—because it produces outcomes that harm the very cause it claims to serve.

1. It hands the state justification for escalation
   When crowds interfere, agencies respond with more security, more armor, more agents, more barriers, more “surge” operations, and more aggressive posture. You get more federal presence, not less.
2. It turns “policy debate” into “public safety incident”
   Once rocks fly or bodies surge, the story shifts. The public stops hearing arguments and starts watching chaos. And most normal people do not sympathize with chaos.
3. It expands the legal net
   Interference incidents can lead to federal charges, probation restrictions, employment consequences, and permanent records. For many young protesters, that becomes a lifelong price tag for a moment of adrenaline.
4. It increases the odds of death
   Not metaphorical death. Literal death. Minneapolis is not a thought experiment. It’s a warning label.

So the sane question is: if your method raises the probability of death and lowers the probability of reform, why are you doing it?

Because it feels good. Because it signals virtue. Because it produces social media clips. Because the modern activist economy rewards drama and punishes boring effectiveness.

Sanctuary politics and “ICE = terrorists” rhetoric: words turn into gasoline

One of the most corrosive trends in modern politics is moral inflation. Everything is “fascism.” Everything is “terrorism.” Everything is “genocide.” Everything is the end of the republic.

And once you brand your political opponent as evil incarnate, your followers start believing violence is justified.

That goes for both sides.

DHS has argued that inflammatory rhetoric contributes to threats and assaults against ICE officers, publicizing dramatic percentage increases in threats and attacks. 

This is a feedback loop:

• Officials defend operations.
• Activists overreact because they don’t trust officials.
• Misinformation spreads because everyone is angry.
• People show up ready to fight.
• The odds of tragedy climb.

That isn’t “democracy in action.” It’s a slow-motion collapse of civic sanity.

What the adult version of opposition looks like

If someone opposes ICE policy or tactics, there are ways to do it that don’t involve turning sidewalks into combat zones:

1. Document from a safe distance
   Observe.
2. Use courts and oversight
   Congressional oversight, inspector general investigations, civil rights litigation, and judicial review are slow and imperfect—but they’re real mechanisms. Even in the Minneapolis fallout, the legal system and oversight questions are front and center.
3. Fight policy with policy
   Argue priorities: violent offenders first, repeat offenders, fraud, trafficking. Argue transparency. Argue standards. Argue measurable outcomes. Argue budgets. That’s how serious people win.
4. Stop believing every viral clip
   When a claim is explosive and perfectly tailored to make you furious, assume it might be engineered to do exactly that—especially now that AI can manufacture “evidence” in minutes.

The simplest truth people don’t want to hear

The government is not going to lose a street fight to you.

You are not going to “abolish ICE” by rushing agents.

You are not going to “save democracy” by surrounding vehicles.

You are going to get arrested, injured, or worse—and then your cause will be reduced to a montage of chaos that convinces the middle of the country that you’re unhinged.

That’s what makes it insanity: people keep doing something that predictably produces the opposite of what they say they want.

One can be right—and dead right.

Why This Matters

Because this isn’t just about immigration.

It’s about whether America will keep settling disputes through law, elections, and institutions—or whether we’re going to normalize street conflict as a legitimate tool of politics.

Once you decide that physically stopping enforcement is “justice,” you’ve opened the door for everyone else to do the same thing when they don’t like a law. Then the entire country becomes a permanent rolling brawl, with competing moral excuses slapped on top.

You don’t have to love ICE. You don’t have to trust DHS talking points. You don’t have to agree with every arrest priority or enforcement tactic.

But if your response is to attack federal agents in the street, you’re not resisting tyranny—you’re volunteering for chaos.

References

Reuters. (2026, January 24). Federal immigration agents involved in second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen in Minneapolis during enforcement surge. 
Reuters. (2026, January 26). Explainer: Can ICE agents be prosecuted for Minneapolis shootings? 
Reuters. (2026, January 28). U.S. review of Alex Pretti killing does not mention him brandishing firearm; evidence disputes officials’ accounts. 
Reuters. (2026, January 27). U.S. judge threatens ICE chief with contempt, orders court appearance over compliance issues. 
PBS NewsHour. (2026, January 28). Fact-checking Trump’s claim that anti-ICE protesters are “paid agitators.” 
AFP Fact Check. (2026, January 13). Video of anti-ICE protester touting hourly pay is AI-generated. 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2026, January 8). DHS statement claiming a 1,300% increase in assaults against ICE officers and a 3,200% increase in vehicular attacks. 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2026, January 26). DHS statement claiming an 8,000% increase in death threats against ICE officers and their families. 
Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). 18 U.S.C. § 111 — Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees. 
U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Criminal Resource Manual: Forcible act required—18 U.S.C. § 111. 
TRAC Reports. (2025, November–December). Immigration detention quick facts / detention by conviction status. 
Migration Policy Institute. (2026, January 13). Analysis of detention composition and enforcement shifts (criminal conviction vs. pending charge vs. immigration-related). 
Poynter. (2026, January 26). Fact-check on claims about “violent criminals” in ICE detention and how categories are defined. 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2024, December 19). ICE releases Fiscal Year 2024 annual report.

Disclaimer:
The views expressed in this post are opinions of the author for educational and commentary purposes only. They are not statements of fact about any individual or organization, and should not be construed as legal, medical, or financial advice. References to public figures and institutions are based on publicly available sources cited in the article. Any resemblance beyond these references is coincidental.