Federal Agents' Intent and Willingness to Kill

As a kid, I remember how we would play superheroes and I would always avoid the idea that anyone, even bad guys, would be killed - I’d insist that adversaries would be knocked out or stunned. In Star Trek, I thought it was cool that security guards would always ‘set their phasers to stun’. Even then, the act of killing was an anathema to me. 

I came to the USA in 1997, working as a postdoc in a neuroscience lab at the University of Southern California. A couple of years into this epoch of my life, I remember that the LAPD had shot a mentally-ill, homeless woman for lunging at them with a screwdriver (link). 

It floored me.

An armed, competent, trained, equipped, uninjured copper couldn’t effectively defuse a physical altercation with a mentally ill homeless woman so they were forced to kill her? Unbelievable.

There was public outrage, a civil suit with a $1,000,000 payout but ultimately a police panel made the following ruling:

“Officer Larrigan’s response was defensive. It was reactive. It was his last, indeed his only, resort to prevent serious bodily injury or death to himself. And it was compelled in the end by the actions of the victim.” (link)

The language they use still makes no sense to me: “his only resort” suggesting that these guys had never heard of knife disarms. Fighting someone who is armed with a screwdriver is dangerous, but isn't that the job? If a cop’s only recourse to dealing with any violent or potentially violent member of the public is to pull out a firearm and to shoot (or threaten to shoot) that person, they’re a really lousy cop. 

Now, naturally, I am not a police officer, have no real idea what these situations are really like and I was not there and have no idea what actually happened. But that's not my point. Rather than considering the litany of reasons we always hear about that justify individual instances of officer-involved killings, I want to consider the overall pattern of these killings as a whole.

By way of contrast, in the United Kingdom, a grand total of 88 people have been directly killed since 1990 (link), whereas 1,315 people were killed in the USA in 2025 alone (link, also see footnote [1] below)

Beyond the obvious barbarity of these numbers, how they beggar belief and challenge any notion of what should be considered 'normal' in a civilized society, to me this simply shows one thing - that consideration of the sanctity of life in the United States is treated differently by law enforcement officers than in other countries. I do not understand what the cause of this disparity is - the fact that the availability of guns in the USA makes the risk of being killed as a police officer at least 100 times worse than in the UK, systemic racism, other forms of violent discrimination, the existence of warrior culture within individual departments or subgroups, or even the long and storied history of romanticizing gun-use by lawmen in Westerns.  

At some level, the reasons for the disparity don't matter. 

What matters is that police officers in the US are more likely to think that it is somehow more acceptable to kill members of the public than in other countries. However justified or unjustified that action might be, it is chilling to contemplate and should be considered a serious problem that absolutely needs to be remedied. 

Under the Black Lives Matter movement and the subsequent call for police reform, I felt that there was  some hope that police activity would eventually center on preventing criminal activity and protecting public safety as long as reform and activism continued. Any accompanying civic issues of corruption, and racial prejudice could be dealt with. The system still felt dangerous, prejudiced, and unfair but still served the underlying need to enforce the law. 

The recent political developments from MAGA, the over-funding of ICE, and subsequent behavior of the agency taking enforcement actions reveals a stark, horrific willingness of law enforcement officers to shoot people (link) and to conduct themselves in the most unprofessional, unlawful, and illegitimate way possible.    

On October 4, 2025 in Chicago, a woman named Marimar Martinez was shot seven times by border patrol agents who were recorded as saying "Do Something Bitch" during the altercation, one of whom boasted about their marksmanship on their victim as a target to other members of their team (link, link). On January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, a woman called Renee Good was killed by a federal officer, who was recorded as saying "Fucking Bitch" after he shot her point blank through her car's side window (link). An unverified post on Instagram from January 11, 2026 shows an interview with a woman claiming to be an ex-marine  brutalized by ICE agents saying "Have not learned? This is why we killed that lesbian bitch" (link). 

Other factors suggest deliberate brutality. The narrative from the MAGA leadership that routinely makes false claims about victims, absolves any federal agents actions under all circumstances and uses every pretense to intimidate political opponents suggest that the brutality is part of an intentional policy. Federal agents' wearing of masks to avoid identification and accountability is unprecedented (except possibly in South African death squads and ISIS fighters). The performative nature of many of the actions themselves and clear lack of concern for the well-being of the public is deliberately provocative. 

The killing of Renée Good reminds me of the scene in Schindler's List when Diana Reiter, a jewish engineer, informs Amon Göth that the barracks in the Plaszów labor camp were built incorrectly while his officers complain about her and call her a "Fucking Bitch". Göth calmly orders his soldiers to shoot her, saying "We're not going to argue with these people" (link). It is at that point where the audience understands Göth's attitude perfectly - he'd kill someone just for having the sheer gall to speak to him in a way he felt was disrespectful - and following the killing, the organization he is a part of both accepts and celebrates his action. At the risk of invoking the Reductio ad Hitlerum logical fallacy, the parallels seem pretty close to me. 

This shows us where we are - what the obvious role that federal immigration actions are being used for.

Clearly, we must resist this entire process. We must insist on humanity. We must stand up for an end to the violence. 

The people standing up and going to these places in order to provide accountability and resistance in the face of this onslaught are displaying a courage that I know I do not possess.  

They are exhibiting Satyagraha - Gandhi's civil disobedience clinging steadfastly to the truth while resisting the barbarity of these killers - with incredible courage and heroism.  

A single candle of grace in the current darkness and I thank and honor them.

The Harry Potter School of Heroism

An iconic line from ‘Batman, the Dark Knight Rises’ embodies a sentiment so cruel and abusive that it shook me. The line is “You have my permission to die”, first triumphantly spoken by Bane after snapping Batman’s spine in single combat as a monologue revealing his dastardly plans for Gotham. This was glorious stuff, a key moment in the story where Bane stands with complete power over his adversary, choosing his words carefully to inflict as much despair as he can on his helpless victim. This is a man devoid of humanity, a monster worth fighting, a Bad Guy.

Now, this wasn’t the thing that bothered me. The thing that made me stop and think ‘hold on a second there’ was when the tables were turned. When, on the steps of City Hall, Batman (now recovered from his spinal injury) fights Bane mano-a-mano, and wholly defeats him. Standing over his wheezing, pathetic-looking body, Batman re-echoes Bane’s words: “You now have my permission to die”. At the time of writing this essay (2013), the phrase has become an online meme, echoed by anyone seeking a quick laugh at the melodrama of its overblown callousness. 

Thinking a little deeper, I’d say that this was the moment Batman lost. He lost by becoming as cruel and heartless as his enemy. Naturally, the logic is that Bane deserved it, he was simply getting his just desserts. Payback’s a bitch.

Another line, this time from Nietzsche, springs to mind: “Battle not with monsters, lest you become a monster.”

The theme of ‘good but badass’ heroes is ridiculously common in action movies. Tough, ruthless men and women: warriors, mercenaries, soldiers, cops, spies, bodyguards, commandos, ninja, assassins and hitmen are frequently portrayed as heroes. The distinguishing feature they possess are a very particular set of skills that usually come down to the ability to kill people (and to look sexy doing it). They are Good Guys. They kill Bad Guys. Sometimes in a spectacular fashion that elicits cheers and applause from movie-goers. This could be a beheading, a knife through the crown of the skull or perhaps an explosive detonated within their adversary’s body just after the bad guy realizes what is about to happen. The image of ‘a good guy with a gun’ is glorified and eulogized, enshrined in legend and admired by lots of people, copied by some in their choice of profession or their own self image.

Shakespeare’s bloodiest play, Titus Andronicus, is an object lesson about cycles of violence and vengeance: an eye for an eye, a rape for a death, a mutilation here, a little cannibalism there. One must admit that the bard went a little berserk at the end there, but the underlying theme is pretty clear. Payback is a bitch and an uncaring, undiscerning one at that. Violence inflicted on your enemies will in turn evolve into violence inflicted on you and the moral arguments you might try to use to continue justifying retribution become ever weaker as you continue. Moreover, the situation perennially escalates, becoming more entrenched as you progress. Once you start with vengeance, you will find it harder to stop. This is the tragedy that gets played out again and again in places like Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Algeria, Belfast, and even on the streets of my home: Los Angeles. Men fight and men die based on the same tired, empty, cycles of revenge and retribution.

If these people have heroes, they are as the ancient Greeks imagined them: Hector and Achilles, cutting through swathes of enemies to wade in their blood, gloriously terrible and beyond the scope of lesser men. To me, these people aren’t heroes, but bullies, driven by ego and a need to dominate and overpower others. 

Consider an alternative 'school of heroism', where evil can be confronted by intelligence, force (if necessary) but always by humanity, decency and goodness. 

Consider Harry Potter.

There’s a moment in HP7 when Harry is fending off the evil machinations of the dastardly Draco Malfoy. They’re flying around the Room of Requirement and someone starts a fire which traps and threatens to engulf Malfoy. Harry then places his own life in danger to rescue Draco, just simply because it’s the right thing to do. At a later stage, when Voldemort has supposedly killed Harry, Malfoy’s mother examines his body to find he’s still alive and she lies about it to Voldemort. Why? Because he had saved the life of her son.

This embodies the sentiment expressed by Abraham Lincoln when he said: “Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?”. By steadfastly holding on to his decency, even in the face of all manner of provoking circumstances, Harry provides an exit route from this steadily spiraling cycle of violence, as similarly demonstrated by Abraham Lincoln, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela.

An important aspect of the notion of heroism is that it presents idealized people who we admire and aspire to emulate. I wonder how many professional murderers chose their profession because of James Bond, the Godfather, Scarface, American Sniper or maybe even Batman.

We need to choose our heroes wisely. I choose Harry Potter.

The Barbarism of Fear

Weapons are funny things. I'm a pretty seasoned competitive fencer, or rather, I used to be. Nowadays, when I show up at a good club for a bout or two and can expected to be trounced by everyone, but in my day, I wasn't half bad. I was a pretty good foilist: 75th in England in 1995. I trained with Olympians and even beat one of them once in serious competition (it was his first bout of the day and I'm pretty sure he was half asleep). So, I knew and still know how to fight with swords. I watched swordfighting movies with a high body count and would be generally more concerned about the techniques being used than the actual events being depicted. I loved Akira Kurosawa's classic 'Seven Samurai' or Robert Mitchum's 'American Yakuza' and 'The Princess Bride' remains one of my favorite movies of all time.

I wonder how I'd feel if my interest in swordplay was linked in the public mindset to the Rwandan genocide, so that people associated me with the brutal members of the Interahamwe, who killed close to a million people in Rwanda in 1994. After all, they largely used machetes which could be considered to be a little like swords at a pinch. Naturally, the connection would be a little ludicrous and grossly unfair.

I think that this may be the way that some gun owners feel when they are associated with the atrocities of mass shootings. Even if you might disagree with the comparison, I think they feel unfairly judged. Like me, they have an interest in perfecting their skill at using their weapons. Like me, they might even romanticize the martial art itself. Like me, the idea of actually using a 'live version' of their weapons on real people might horrify them. There are a great many gun owners who would never, ever kill anyone, except in the most extreme of circumstances. It's an interesting fact that the majority of US infantrymen in WWII would not fire their weapons at the enemy; to the chagrin of their commanders, but also as a loud testament to the natural goodness of humanity. Training programs in the army put paid to that pretty quickly so that soldiers in Vietnam were much more likely to kill when facing a real person (and suffer the associated psychological trauma into the bargain).

The crucial distinction about weapons arises from a person's underlying intention.

There are people who learn to use swords and other weapons in martial arts classes with a focus on self defense. This could include sticks, knives or other 'realistic' approaches to using and defending against weapons (including unnarmed techniques). The intention here is to hurt, injure, blind or even kill your opponent. Similarly, there are gun owners who obtained their weapons for 'self defense', to protect themselves and their families. When someone has that intention, I feel that they transition into a new state of being; you become someone capable of killing.

The much-overused phrase: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is true, but if you bought a gun with the intention of firing it a human being (for whatever reason) then you might well just be one of those people who kill people. It may even be the case that the process of holding a gun in your hand, of firing it at a target that looks like a bad guy crouching and waiting to strike, of enjoying action movies that depict bad-ass heroes kill bad guys makes someone more likely to be one of those people that kill people.

I practiced martial arts (including Krav Maga and Jeet Kune Do) for several years, it seemed like a natural progression from fencing and I liked it. I was good at it and still am (up to a point). I remember though, watching the movie 'United 93' about the 9/11 hijackings, how my body felt during the film. As I saw the action on screen, I started to internally visualize choke holds, takedowns and elbow strikes that I would have tried to use, had I been there. It was intensely vivid and visceral. In my mind, I would have fought, gouged and strangled and my body and brainstem was happy to help. At that moment, I confess, I was quite capable of being a killer. If I had been trained to use firearms, I'd probably have been planning of how I'd shoot them instead of choke them. Guns simply make it much easier to translate this sort of murderous intent directly into action, reality and death.

Barry MacGuigan, the great irish featherweight, grew up in Northern Ireland amid the murderous violence of the troubles. He used to say 'Leave the fighting to MacGuigan' as a counter to the rhetoric being slung about between Protestants and Catholics. He was the inspiration for the 1997 movie 'The Boxer' starring Daniel Day Lewis where the main contrast between protagonists drew a bright line between the men who fought with their fists to win and men who fought with guns to kill.

There are times, I suppose, when we might need to fight, tooth and bloody murderous nail, for survival. I hope never to be placed in such a predicament. If I was, I hope to acquit myself with the same level of courage shown by Victoria Soto, Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn, Alex Teves, or Brian Murphy (heroes from Newton, Aurora and Wisconsin). To have to ponder such a situation is to have to consider a truly horrifying choice. Must we all train ourselves to become killers in order to survive? 

This is barbarism. I feel that we have to ask these questions about why we have become so afraid of one another. Why are we willing to become killers? Are we that afraid of each other? Do we really need to be able to kill our opponents in order to feel safe? Or to feel powerful? Or relevant? At the heart of this question is a deep seated fear of other people in our society (or even of society as a whole) and addressing that issue directly is what we need to do.

Posting gun-owners' addresses online absolutely will not help, neither will asserting that 'genuine monsters' live amongst us, neither will spouting nationalistic rhetoric with accompanying conspiracy theories and threats of violence. Finding effective methods to reduce gun violence in the long term would be a smart thing to do (and the research shows that rates of gun violence tend to correlate with the availability of guns). I think that finding some courage to act with restraint and consideration towards people who scare us might just make a much bigger difference in the long run.