Dwain Northey (Gen X)

Oh, absolutely — let’s just compare a woman who was fatally shot by a federal agent during an immigration operation in Minneapolis to Ashley Babbitt, the Capitol Police shooting on January 6. Because that’s how moral clarity works these days! 🙄

In case you missed it: Renée Nicole Good — a 37-year-old mother of three, a poet, a human being — was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026. Videos circulating show her in her SUV as federal agents approach; the Department of Homeland Security, in a highly contested claim, called it “self-defense.” Local leaders, loved ones, and neighbors strongly dispute that narrative. Many witnesses and footage raise alarms about how quickly lethal force was used and whether it was at all justified. Good was not known to be armed, was not the target of an arrest, and was reportedly returning home after dropping a child off at school when approached by agents. 

And Ashley Babbitt — a 35-year-old air force veteran — was shot and killed by a Capitol Police officer during the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol. That day — yes, the day rioters stormed the Capitol in an attempt to overturn a democratic election — saw Babbitt climb through a broken door toward a secured hallway when an officer fired. Multiple investigations concluded the shooting was lawful and within department policy, noting officers faced an immediate, violent breach and Babbitt was part of an unlawful mob. 

And now — cue the dramatic head-exploding emoji — some folks on the right want to spin these two incidents as if they’re morally equivalent. As if a federal agent shooting a woman during a controversial enforcement action in Minneapolis is the same as shooting someone in the chaos of a violent insurrection aimed at destroying our democratic institutions. Because clearly the very fabric of American moral reasoning depends on equating those two. 😒

So let’s get this straight:

Renée Good was a civilian whose death in broad daylight has sparked nationwide grief, protests, and scrutiny. Her neighbors, her partner, her mother, and city leaders have publicly questioned federal claims that she “weaponized” her car or posed a clear threat.  Ashley Babbitt was part of an attack attempting to breach secure chambers of Congress. She was participating in a mass effort to overturn a democratic election — an action most people on Earth would call extremist, violent, and unlawful. Her shooting came in the immediate context of an assault on a seat of government. 

But sure! Let’s all just chuck out nuance and context and claim they’re the same, because why not?! Isn’t it fun — truly so fun — to pretend this is just another day in a balanced moral landscape?

Meanwhile, the outrage machine cranks on:

Republicans insisting Good’s killing was “self-defense” while desperately trying to paint Babbitt as an innocent civilian who did nothing wrong. Conservatives bristling at any investigation into federal agents involved in Good’s death — as if scrutiny is inherently partisan. …and somehow, by some marvel of rhetorical gymnastics, both tragedies now fuel the exact same talking point? Which conveniently absolves one set of people of any responsibility and blames the other set for everything? Classic.

It’s almost admirable — in the way that watching a toddler learn physics by repeatedly slamming their head against a wall might be admirable.

But here’s the bottom line: treating these two deaths as if they occupy the same ethical terrain is not just intellectually bankrupt — it’s morally lazy and politically opportunistic. One was a woman caught in a controversial and contested use of force by a federal agency.  The other was a participant in an attack on the Capitol, indisputably part of a violent upheaval against the constitutional process. 

Comparing them to score political points is not just wrong — it’s shameless. And that, dear reader, is the part that’s truly outrageous.