---

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable.”

—George Orwell (1903–1950). British writer and essayist.

---

Two weeks apart. Thirteen or more shots fired. Two American citizens dead in Minneapolis.

January 7, 2026. Renée Good.
Three or more shots fired, including one to the head.
Bam. Bam. Bam.

January 24, 2026. Alex Pretti.
Ten shots fired.
Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam.

Both dead.

I can’t stop thinking about those thirteen shots.

Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam. Bam.

I hope you can’t stop thinking about them.

I am haunted by the shots. Not by the chaos of the moment. By the decision to use lethal force.

I don’t raise these questions lightly. I raise them because I feel an obligation to do so.

I am appalled by what happened to Renée Good and Alex Pretti. Not because I know all the answers—but because the answers offered so far do not begin to match the gravity of what occurred.

I am outraged by the shots.

Not that shots were fired—anyone who understands law enforcement understands danger. Threats are real. Decisions are made in fractions of a second.

But these shots.

A shot to the head. Ten shots fired after a man had been disarmed.

These are not details. They are the story.

I want to know why:

• lethal force was chosen where restraint appears possible

• a vehicle was not disabled if it was the threat

• a disarmed man required ten rounds to stop him

• “self-defense” is offered as a conclusion instead of the beginning of a serious public accounting

• we lower our voices when bullets have already spoken

Let me be clear: I would be asking these same questions with or without ICE involvement. This is not about immigration policy. It is not about partisan loyalties. It is about the use of lethal force by the government—any arm of government—against citizens, and the obligation that power carries with it.

When a gun is fired by law enforcement, intent matters. When a head is struck, intent matters more. When shots continue after a suspect is disarmed, intent becomes unavoidable.

We are often told that officers do not “intend to kill,” only to stop a threat. But bullets are not suggestions. Aimed fire is not symbolic. The human body understands intent even when language tries to soften it.

I want to know why the federal government can irreversibly take a life without the checks that define a democracy.

Not to inflame.

Not to prosecute from my keyboard.

Not to pretend that complex situations have simple answers.

But because a democracy that cannot answer why—plainly, fully, without euphemism—cannot credibly claim justice.

Silence is not neutrality. Deflection is not due process. Repetition of official language is not accountability.

I want to know why.

I think you should, too.