January 2026
Wow! The unhinged leftists are in full meltdown over the death of Renee Good, shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent (ICE) agent in Minneapolis. The 37-year-old mother of 3 children became involved in a confrontation with ICE agents and allegedly tried to run over an agent as she sped away in her car. Some of the videos, including the body camera of the officer who fired the single, fatal shot, have clearly shown that the officer was struck by Good’s car as it sped away. That part is apparently not enough for the usual anti-law enforcement crowd to brand the officer, identified in some reports as Special Agent Jonathan Ross, as a cold-blooded murderer.
In reaction to a posting from Star Trek actor George Takei on Facebook, I posted the following comment: “One way to avoid getting shot by law enforcement is to obey their commands. If they are in the wrong, that can be dealt with later. She didn’t deserve to die, but she did, so let’s let the investigation take place and go from there.” There were many supportive reactions to my comments, but many others continued with the usual leftist drivel about Nazis and murderous federal agents, gunning down yet another angelic, innocent person.
It seems that Canada and America are continuing on the downward spiral where common sense and critical thinking are no longer practiced. Even with me taking a neutral position, until all the facts are known, was beyond the ability of some of the commentators to handle. They already have their torches and pitchforks out.
I think a lot of other people have been watching too many cop shows on American TV. Have any of you out there ever pointed a gun at someone, for defensive reasons, and prayed that they would cease doing the life-threatening action towards you? I have and so have other people I have known over the past 30 years. Fortunately, I never had to shoot anyone, but many officers have done so and it’s not always something that you can just shake off and carry on, like so many cops on TV. Shooting someone isn’t as easy to deal with emotionally, as it is on TV cop shows, unless the officer is a complete psycho. It does affect officers, over a wide degree; some in a minor way, some to a tragic end. I suggest any who think otherwise may want to read up on the late Toronto Police Constable Darius Garda. He committed suicide in 2016, after being cleared of a justified shooting. Taking a life, even if it was completely justified, was something that he was never able to get over.
I’m in no way saying Special Agent Ross was justified in shooting Renee Good because we don’t know all the facts yet. From the videos that I’ve seen, it looks like Ross MAY have been able to side-step out of the way of the car, but that aspect reminds me of a poster that hung in the locker room at my police station, “You have 3 seconds to decide if this is a real gun. Time’s up!” I’ve also heard reports that Ross was injured last year in a similar manner, so he may have been a little overly-cautious of cars driving towards him.
What I am saying let’s wait until all the facts are known before passing judgement. Let the legal process happen before you brand this officer as a murderer. If he is in fact a complete psycho and enjoys shooting people, the sooner he is fired from ICE and in prison, the better!
Even if he over-reacted and could have easily side-stepped out of the way, that doesn’t make him a murderer, nor beyond some sort of punishment. Facts matter, and to be more blunt, facts don’t care about your feelings. If it’s found that the shooting was not justifiable, that in NO WAY means the officer woke up that day hoping to murder someone. We also need to take into account, at the risk of blaming the deceased, that if she had complied with the officer’s order to get out of the car, she would be alive today, so there’s that aspect too.
To be even more blunt, it really doesn’t matter what the truth is, it only matters what you can prove in court. Fortunately, we have a lot of video footage before, during and after the shooting, so proving the truth in court should be pretty straight forward.
There will be an investigation, despite what some commentators believe. What I’m not confident will happen is people on the “he’s a murderer” side will accept any ruling that doesn’t result in Ross being drawn and quartered. One critical point that may lead to Ross being cleared of any wrongdoing is the fact that, in law, it doesn’t matter whether Good actually intended to hit Ross with her car. What matters for a successful prosecution is whether Special Agent Ross had an objectively reasonable assessment he was in imminent threat of serious physical violence. That’s not an opinion; it’s a legal fact.
Let the process run it’s course.
*******************************************************************************************************************
My chat with the Facebook crowd:
One way to avoid getting shot by law enforcement is to obey their commands. If they are in the wrong, that can be dealt with later. She didn’t deserve to die, but she did, so let’s let the investigation take place and go from there.
DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry to Bruce Forsyth: The idea that “one way to avoid getting shot is to obey commands” sounds simple, but it does not reflect how constitutional rights, power, and risk actually work in real encounters. The Constitution does not condition your right to be free from unreasonable seizure or excessive force on perfect compliance in a chaotic, frightening moment. Under the Fourth Amendment, the question is whether the officer’s use of force was objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances, not whether the person who was shot followed every command without hesitation (Graham v. Connor, 1989). The Supreme Court has also held that deadly force is only justified when an officer has probable cause to believe a person poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm (Tennessee v. Garner, 1985). Those standards apply even when there is confusion, disagreement, or partial non‑compliance. They are designed precisely because “if they are in the wrong, that can be dealt with later” is not meaningful to someone who is already dead.
There is also a long history in the United States of “comply now, complain later” being used to shift responsibility away from state power and onto the person who was harmed. In practice, marginalized communities are often told that if they had just complied more quickly, more calmly, or more perfectly, they would not have been hurt or killed—regardless of what the officer actually did. That framing treats survival as a test of obedience rather than a right protected by law. In Renee Good’s case, the core issue is not whether she could have made a different choice in a split second, but whether the officer’s decision to use lethal force met the constitutional standard of necessity and reasonableness in that moment. Saying “she didn’t deserve to die, but she did, so let’s just wait for the investigation” risks normalizing a pattern where the burden is always placed on the dead to have behaved differently, while the state’s use of power is treated as presumptively legitimate.
An evidence‑based, rights‑based analysis starts from a different place: the state has the highest duty because it holds the gun, the badge, and the legal authority. Investigations are necessary, but they are not neutral by default—especially when the same institutions that used force control the evidence, the narrative, and often the investigative process. The fact that someone died at the hands of law enforcement is not an argument to “move on and see what happens”; it is the reason to scrutinize whether constitutional limits were honored in the first place. Obedience may reduce risk in some encounters, but it is neither a legal requirement for protection from excessive force nor a moral shield for the state when that force is unjustified.
DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry to Jeff Freeman: The claim that civic participation amounts to being a “professional rioter/agitator” ignores what the U.S. Constitution actually protects. The First Amendment explicitly guarantees that “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” shall not be abridged. Constitutional scholars note that the right to petition was understood by the Framers as a core democratic function: the ability of ordinary people to challenge government actions, demand accountability, and seek remedies for injustice (Amar, 2012). In other words, public protest, organized dissent, and collective advocacy are not fringe activities — they are constitutionally protected forms of political participation.
Historically, the Supreme Court has affirmed that this right is fundamental. In United States v. Cruikshank, the Court described the right to assemble for the purpose of petitioning the government as an inherent attribute of citizenship, protected even when the government disapproves of the message (Cruikshank, 1876). Later constitutional commentary emphasizes that the right to assemble exists because people have the right to petition; assembly is the mechanism through which communities gather to express grievances and demand governmental accountability (Magliocca, 2018). Nothing in the First Amendment requires the public to be polite, quiet, or ideologically convenient — only that the assembly be peaceable.
So the evidence‑based correction is straightforward: the Constitution does not define civic engagement as “rioting” or “agitating.” It defines it as petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, a protected act of democratic self‑governance that predates the nation itself. When people gather, march, speak, or organize to challenge government actions, they are not violating the Constitution — they are exercising the very rights the Constitution was written to protect (Amar, 2012; Magliocca, 2018).
Bruce Forsyth to DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry, that’s a very well-articulated argument that would make any judge pleased to have you in his/her courtroom. At what point did I say that there should be absolutely no negative repercussions for the ICE agent who shot this woman? Let the investigation play out.
Christine Cullen Keith to DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry or, don’t recklessly gun your car toward an officer… what else was he supposed to do in a split second?
DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry to Christine Cullen Keith: The available reporting makes it clear that the “split‑second” framing collapses under even minimal scrutiny because the agent’s weapon was already drawn before Renee Good’s vehicle moved in any meaningful way. In the USA TODAY analysis, the sequence begins with Good’s SUV stopped crosswise in the street while she gestures for another driver to pass. During this period of relative stillness, the agent who ultimately fires is not reacting to a sudden threat; instead, he is seen walking around the vehicle, recording a bystander, and then deliberately positioning himself directly in front of the Honda. That positioning occurs before any forward motion from Good’s vehicle, and it is paired with the unmistakable posture of a drawn and ready firearm (Petras et al., 2026). Newsweek’s reconstruction of the same footage reinforces this point by documenting that the shooter‑agent had already moved into the vehicle’s path and assumed a prepared stance before the Honda reverses or turns. In other words, the agent’s gun is not a reaction to movement; it is part of the setup that precedes it (Rahman, 2026).
ABC News’ timing analysis adds another layer of confirmation. Their review notes that only 399 milliseconds separate the first two shots. That level of rapid fire is only physically possible because the weapon was already drawn, aimed, and indexed on the driver before the vehicle shifted at all. A holstered weapon cannot be drawn, presented, and fired twice in under half a second. The timing therefore corroborates what the video already shows visually: the agent was prepared to shoot before any alleged “threat” emerged (Inal et al., 2026).
Taken together, these independent analyses dismantle the claim that the agent had “no choice” in a split second. The split second was manufactured by the agent’s own tactical decisions — walking into the vehicle’s path, drawing his weapon early, and escalating the encounter while the vehicle was still largely stationary. The car’s movement is ambiguous and limited; the gun is not. The weapon is out, aimed, and fired through the windshield at close range, and that sequence begins before Good’s SUV moves in a way that could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to run anyone over. The evidence shows a pre‑existing readiness to use lethal force, not a last‑moment defensive reaction.
DeMecia Wooten-Irizarry to Christine Cullen Keith: The “what else was he supposed to do in a split second?” framing falls apart the moment you slow the footage down the way USA Today’s visual team did. Their frame‑by‑frame reconstruction shows the agent first moving around the vehicle and then planting himself directly in front of Renee Good’s SUV with his gun already drawn while the car is still stationary. Only after he has assumed that position, weapon up and indexed toward the windshield, do we see any movement from the vehicle at all—and even then, it is a limited, low‑speed maneuver rather than a sudden, high‑velocity lunge at an unsuspecting officer (Petras et al., 2024). In other words, the gun is not a response to motion; the motion happens in the shadow of a gun that is already out.
Reporting consistent with the New York Times’ coverage emphasizes the same core sequence but widens the lens to policy and practice. That analysis situates the shooting in the broader context of use‑of‑force standards, noting that officers are trained to avoid placing themselves directly in front of vehicles precisely because doing so manufactures a “split‑second” danger that can then be used to justify deadly force (Baker, 2024). When you overlay that with what the video shows—that the agent chose to step into the vehicle’s path with his weapon drawn before any movement—it becomes clear that this was not an unavoidable, instantaneous reaction, but the foreseeable outcome of a series of tactical decisions.
Retired ICE agents who have spoken publicly about the incident have been blunt on this point. They describe the decision to stand in front of a running vehicle with a drawn gun as tactically unsound and unnecessary, stressing that there were safer options available: maintaining cover to the side, using the vehicle’s position to contain, and continuing verbal commands rather than escalating to a kill zone of the officer’s own making (Balliet, 2024). Their professional judgment aligns with what the footage and reconstructions already show—that the agent’s gun was drawn before there was any movement, and that the so‑called “split second” was not an act of fate, but a moment he helped create.
Amélie Frank to Bruce Forsyth Alas, they shouted contradictory orders at her. Which one was she supposed to follow?
Bruce Forsyth to Amélie Frank, Let the investigation play out.
Peter Gillman to Bruce Forsyth The FBI have taken over, we now know which order will be applied to the situation and it isn’t the one she obeyed
Vanessa Inman to Bruce Forsyth you’re forgetting that there was an American citizen that ice kidnapped and it took them over 2 years to get back to his family. You’re forgetting that ice doesn’t give two s**** about whether or not you’re here legally or not because all they care about is a color of your skin they don’t honor passports driver’s license is work visas they don’t honor that they never have. They target people at work at their jobs as well as at church picking up the kids from school. They aren’t law enforcement. There’s no uniform there’s no badge number they don’t have you don’t know who these people are their faces are messed their criminals so I’m grateful that she hurt when I wish she could done more damage to him, that protecting your fellow citizens from being terrorized by a racist government is pretty brave.
Bruce Forsyth to Vanessa Inman, let the investigation play out.
Bonnie Laughlin to Bruce Forsyth If is really sad that you see people as colors. I see them as humans. She should have turned off her car and stopped. Her wife should have not been filming, to me this suggest they both were looking to be on a news reel, wrong place wrong time.
Bruce Forsyth to Bonnie Laughlin, what do you mean by I see people as colours? I see things from a legal standpoint thus, colour blind.
David Thomas to Bruce Forsyth Did you give the same advice to Ashli Babbitt??
Bruce Forsyth to David Thomas, I never met Ashli, thus I couldn’t give her any advice.
Scott Hutchinson to Bruce Forsyth One way for law enforcement to keep from committing murder is to leave the gun holstered.
Bruce Forsyth to Scott Hutchinson, Wow! Do you honestly think the ICE agent woke up that morning hoping to murder someone?!
Scott Hutchinson to Bruce Forsyth I don’t know what his first thought was when he woke up that morning. But when he drew his gun?
Bruce Forsyth to Scott Hutchinson, I think you, along with a lot of other people, have been watching too many cop shows on American TV. Have you ever pointed a gun at someone, for defensive reasons, and prayed that they would cease doing the life-threatening action towards you? I have and so have people I have known over the past 30 years. You might want to read up on the late Toronto Police Constable Darius Garda. He committed suicide after being cleared of a justified shooting. Taking a life, even if it was completely justified, was something that he was never able to get over. Shooting someone isn’t as easy to deal with emotionally as it is on TV cop shows, unless the officer is a complete psycho. I’m in no way saying this officer was justified in shooting Renee Good because we don’t know all the facts yet. Let the legal process happen before you brand this officer as a murderer. If he is in fact a complete psycho and enjoys shooting people, the sooner he is fired from ICE, the better! Even if he over-reacted and could have easily side-stepped out of the way, that doesn’t make him a murderer, nor beyond some sort of punishment. P.S. I would post a few links for you, but I live in Canada and we are prohibited from posting links to news articles, because of a dispute between Meta and the federal government.
Jakob Faulkner to Bruce Forsyth they would not be dealt with. ICE Agents are above the law under this administration and can unfortunately do whatever they want whenever they want. This isnt about justice or lawfullness, its about control and power
LaTonya Morrison to Bruce Forsyth What law enforcement? Most of these guys were hired off the street and paid a large sum of money to harass people.
Bruce Forsyth to LaTonya Morrison, I take it you have some sort of documentation to prove your accusation?
Bruce Forsyth to LaTonya Morrison, I take it you have proof of your accusation that they “…were hired off the street and paid a large sum of money to harass people.”?
Angelia Niederhelman to Bruce Forsyth
Bruce Forsyth to Angelia Niederhelman, really?! Wow, I didn’t know that cops couldn’t kill anyone they wanted, guilty or not!! Thank you for passing that information along to me.
Angelia Niederhelman to Bruce Forsyth Your original comment indicated that you were unaware that even someone breaking the law doesn’t give cops the right to shoot, so I gave you some knowledge. No need to thank me, I’m here to help the helpless. *tips hat*
Bruce Forsyth to Angelia Niederhelman, Wow, that apparently went over your head. Okay, my comment above thanking you for passing along the information was something called SARCASM. “(Noun) The use of irony to mock or convey contempt. Eg: “His voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment.”
Angelia Niederhelman to Bruce Forsyth *pats you* I know you tried.
Bruce Forsyth to Angelia Niederhelman, ohhhhh, you really got me with that one Karen! Have you ever considered a career as a stand-up comedian?
Jeanette Spisak to Bruce Forsyth Murder is not a legitimate consequence for civil disobedience. They won’t do a legitimate investigation because they WANT the opposition silenced. Stop defending this authoritarian regime.
Bruce Forsyth to Jeanette Spisak, I’m defending due process. We don’t yet know if it was murder or justifiable. As for doing a legitimate investigation, were you satisfied with the investigation into the death of George Floyd? With the proliferation of video trained on law enforcement these days, it’s harder to get away with the B.S. they got away with even 20 years ago.
Jeanette Spisak to Bruce Forsyth We are in different times than the George Floyd murder. Very. This administration will do anything to break the opposition.
My eyes saw what they saw. No way that is justified. My spouse is a 35 year cop. He just shook his head. He had zero words and he’s as moderate/non political as they come.
Bruce Forsyth to Jeanette Spisak, I was a cop in Canada for 22 years, until PTSD ended my career. I purposely haven’t passed judgement as I know first hand, as would your husband, that it’s so much easier to sit in the comfort of your own home and say what should have been done than it is on the street, when you have seconds to make a decision. From the videos that I’ve seen, it looks like the officer who fired MAY have been able to side-step out of the way of the car, but that aspect reminds me of a poster that hung in the locker room at my police station, “You have 3 seconds to decide if this is a real gun. Time’s up!” I’ve also heard reports that this same officer was also injured last year in a similar manner, so he may have been a little overly-cautious of cars driving towards him. Look, Jeanette, and anyone else reading this, I’m in no way saying the officer did the right thing or the wrong thing, at this time. I’m saying let’s wait until all the facts are known before passing judgement. Additionally, if it’s found that the shooting was not justifiable, that in NO WAY means the officer woke up that day hoping to murder someone. We also need to take into account, at the risk of blaming the deceased, that if she had complied with the officer’s order to get out of the car, she would be alive today, so there’s that aspect too.
Stan Moskowitz to Bruce Forsyth
Just comply, you say.
When they say get out of the car, you get out of the car.
When they say get down on the ground, you get down on the ground.
When they say handover your guns, you handover your guns.
When they say get in the box car you get in the box car.
Bruce Forsyth to Stan Moskowitz, wow! That is an incredibly insulting argument you are attempting to make!
DT Mackey to Bruce Forsyth I do not recognize the authority of these masked white nationalists with less training than a certified nurse’s aide and slightly more training than a blackjack dealer.
Bruce Forsyth to DT Mackey, well good for you, because they don’t care about your opinion. What proof do you have that they are white nationalists with slightly more training than a blackjack dealer?
Ray Fluegeman to Bruce Forsyth I agree. Let the investigation proceed and we shall see. As for not getting shot by law enforcement, in this case I disagree. First, I don’t consider ice to be law enforcement. Most of them either failed police academy or didn’t survive boot camp. They are like gang members. He shot this woman at point blank range, then left the scene. He was never in danger. I think he was just pissed that a woman wasn’t going to do what he said.
Bruce Forsyth to Ray Fluegeman, I take it you have proof that ICE officers are failed police officers? Also, they don’t care if you THINK they AREN’T law enforcement officers. Maybe he wasn’t in danger, but he had a VERY short time to make a decision. It may have been the wrong choice, but let’s wait for the facts to come out.
Eric DeLeon to Bruce ICE is immigration enforcement, not law enforcement.
Bruce Forsyth to Eric DeLeon, do you realize how ignorant you sound by saying that? It’s correct to say they aren’t police officers, but they are indeed law enforcement officers. I suggest you read the ICE web site, or maybe even consult a lawyer. “ICE was created in 2003 through a merger of the investigative and interior enforcement elements of the former U.S. Customs Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. ICE now has more than 20,000 law enforcement and support personnel in more than 400 offices in the United States and around the world.” https://www.ice.gov/about-ice
Robert Ernest Richter to Bruce Forsyth One way to not be called a murderer is to not commit murder, bootlicking scum.
Bruce Forsyth to Robert Ernest Richter, that’s pretty presumptuous of you to think all law enforcement officers are bootlicking scum. Some are quite nice.
Jasper Hursley to Bruce Forsyth “Obey conflicting commands from the Feds or die” does not make for a free country.
Jennifer Vicksell to Bruce ForsythIs the government actually going to hold an investigation? I’m not holding my breath…
Bruce Forsyth to Jennifer Vicksell, do you really think, given all the publicity, that there WON”T be an investigation?
Spencer Wright to Bruce Forsyth “dealt with later”….you do realize how many law enforcement and especially ICE have gotten away with literally anything…right?
Bruce Forsyth to Spencer Wright, I know of many officers over the years who have NOT gotten away with bad policing. I can send you file, after file, after file, after file, after file, of bad officers being punished, up to and including termination and imprisonment. Would you like me to send some of those news articles to you?
Alan Johnson to Bruce Forsyth one guy told her to move on and another tried to jerk grr out of the car. What would you do in 2 seconds?????)
Jennifer Brown to Bruce Forsyth you are so delusional if you actually think that bad policing will be “dealt with later”
Bruce Forsyth to Jennifer Brown, I know of many officers over the years who have NOT gotten away with bad policing. I can send you file, after file, after file, after file, after file, of bad officers being punished, up to and including termination and imprisonment. Would you like me to send some of those news articles to you?
Robert Fairbanks to Bruce Forsyth Sensible statement. But, what law were they enforcing, exactly?
Bruce Forsyth to Robert Fairbanks, broadly: Immigration law. Specifically in this case: A woman who was in a place where the officers wanted her to vacate.
Kenn Hitt to Bruce Forsyth in trump america , do you really think that’s going to happen
Bruce Forsyth to Kenn Hitt, YES.
Éamonn O’Boyle to Bruce Forsyth it can’t be dealt with later if you’re dead
Bruce Forsyth to Éamonn O’Boyle, ummm, tell that to all the murders currently in prisons across Canada and America.
Dean Knapton to Bruce Forsyth Shithead
Bruce Forsyth to Dean Knapton, now, there’s no reason to call the ICE agents “Shitheads” until we know all the facts.
Bruce Forsyth to Dean Knapton, that’s not a nice thing to say about the ICE officers.
Emmi Harrell to Bruce Forsyth your ignorance is profound
Bruce Forsyth to Emmi Harrell, please explain to me how I am being ignorant in wanting to wait until all the facts are known before passing judgment? I’m waiting.
Lipsha Morrissey to Bruce Forsyth 
Bruce Forsyth to Lipsha Morrissey, please explain to me how I am being a bootlicker by wanting to let the investigation take place and go from there?
Sources: Renee Nicole Good: Mother of 3 who loved to sing and write poetry shot and killed by ICE in Minneapolis | CNN, Const. Darius Garda fought to get help for post-traumatitress, Father of ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good breaks silence over killing – Yahoo News Canada.
**************************
Sharing a great, spot-on, article:
This was from Laire Lightner and very well said!
A 37-year-old woman.
Three kids. Middle of a work week.
The father of those children is dead. She is the parent left. The one job she has above every cause, every protest, every headline, is getting home to her kids.
And what is she doing instead?
She’s in the street, in her car, blocking federal agents who are doing their job. Not alone! Her partner is right there filming her like this is some brave little documentary moment. Around them: whistles blaring, people yelling, pure chaos, manufactured chaos, so agents can’t do their lawful duty.
Her window is down.
She hears the orders.
She understands the orders.
She ignores the orders.
Then she puts the car in reverse.
Still doesn’t comply.
Then she puts it in drive, NOT park! She moves forward into the agent.
That’s not “confusion.”
That’s not “panic.”
That’s decision after decision after decision.
Now put yourself in the agent’s shoes for half a second. A driver is already in an unlawful act! refusing commands in a hostile, chaotic scene, and now that driver uses a vehicle to move toward you.
You get a split second.
You don’t get the luxury of “Maybe she’s just stressed.”
You have to assume the worst, you have to think of protecting other people like the partner at their window, because if you assume the best and you’re wrong, you don’t go home or someone else.
So the agent fires after she makes an intentional and aggressive move toward him, because he has no idea what her intentions are, and she just demonstrated she’s willing to escalate.
Now… imagine her three kids.
At school.
Sitting there like any other day.
Not knowing their mother is out playing street-hero games for criminals in the middle of a work week, with the two adults responsible for them!
She didn’t think about them.
She didn’t think, “If I get arrested, who picks my babies up?”
She didn’t think, “If I get hurt, who raises them?”
She didn’t think, “If I die, they have nobody.”
She thought about protecting criminals.
She thought about interfering with federal agents.
She thought about the camera.
She thought about the crowd.
She thought about the moment.
There is no amount of evidence, money, tears on TV, or news spin that can make this make sense.
As a parent: NOTHING about this makes sense.
At minimum, she knew her actions could get her arrested.
At minimum.
And she still chose it.
She chose strangers.
She chose chaos.
She chose lawlessness.
Make it make sense, because the only thing I see is three kids who just got abandoned by the only parent they had left, not by accident… but by a series of deliberate choices.
Stop defending this.
