Once again, the nation watched in horror as a 37-year-old woman was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. The incident was caught on video. Neighbors saw it happen, their disbelief clear. The story has been widely reported, but hearing it again does not make it any less violent. Video suggest, there was a confrontation. The woman tried to drive away. An agent stepped in front of her car. Multiple shots went through the windshield. Witnesses told reporters that a physician at the scene attempted to provide aid but was prevented from approaching the vehicle, a claim that federal authorities have not publicly addressed. That fact, if accurate, should trouble us most.
What happened on that street was more than just a tragic mistake. It was a moral challenge to our society, asking for more than just shock or sadness. This moment makes us ask: what kind of nation have we created, and what violence have we come to see as normal? We need to admit our shared responsibility, knowing that our daily choices and silence help create a culture where this violence is accepted. Including ourselves in this 'we' makes us care more deeply and pushes us to act, not just reflect.
More than 60 years ago, Vernon Johns, the Black Baptist preacher whose 1957 sermon “It Is Safe to Murder Negroes in Montgomery” stunned his contemporaries, named this condition plainly. His sermon, "It Is Safe to Murder Negroes in Montgomery," did not court provocation. He named the routine devaluation of Black life, the normalization of racial violence cloaked in law, and the moral rot of a society that witnesses brutality, regrets, and returns to business as usual. “When you stand by and watch your brothers and sisters being lynched,” he warned, “it is as if you stood by while Christ was crucified.”
Civil rights scholars and historians have long argued that state violence rarely turns on individual error alone, but on systems that normalize force against certain populations. It comes from systems that treat some lives as less valuable. Whether it is a sheriff, police officer, or federal agent, calling this violence 'safe' points to both personal responsibility and the larger system that allows, excuses, and overlooks these acts. Legal doctrines such as qualified immunity, which courts have repeatedly upheld, often make it difficult to hold law enforcement officers accountable even when the use of force is contested. Federal use-of-force rules can also make actions seem legitimate when they need more scrutiny. Seeing this structure is key to understanding why this violence keeps happening.
The killing occurred during a period of intensified federal immigration enforcement, according to statements from the Department of Homeland Security. It is part of a long history in America, from the Jim Crow South to Ferguson and now Minneapolis. I remember sitting in a church basement years ago, hearing phrases like 'public safety' and 'law and order' used as justifications, just in different forms. The words change, but they still numb us, passing from one generation to the next. The pattern stays the same: Authority acts, a life is lost, a community grieves, and the nation moves on.
I am not a distant observer. I serve as visiting professor at Luther Seminary in Minneapolis. Also, I do not write as a distant observer. As a pastor, I stood with a community through curfews, funerals, protests, and the long exhaustion of being told that what people saw with their own eyes was not real. I witnessed mothers bury their children and people surrender hope not only in institutions but in the country’s honesty. Those days taught me that a 'moment' can reveal the truth. The crisis did not start or end in Ferguson; it was brought into the open. That exposure is happening again.
For years, I have called for an ethic of humaneness, a moral standard that requires public life to respect every person’s full humanity. This ethic is not easy. It says that democracy is measured not only by elections or courts, but by how power is used against the most vulnerable. It asks what kind of society we build when the state’s main answer to fear, disobedience, or running away is deadly force.
This is not just a mere political issue. It is also a spiritual one. Many faith traditions teach the importance of justice and compassion in leadership. For example, the Bible says to 'let justice roll down like waters,' urging us to take real action, not just talk. The Jewish idea of 'tikkun olam,' or repairing the world, calls us to fix social injustices through real civic involvement. These spiritual lessons can help us build a society where civic duty and moral responsibility go hand in hand.
I agree with Eddie Claude: America’s real crisis is dishonesty, not division. One myth that keeps this dishonesty alive is the idea of 'color-blind enforcement,' which claims the law is fair to everyone, while ignoring the real biases and injustices that still shape how laws are enforced. Our problem is not that we disagree, but that we refuse to face our history and how it affects us now. In the Black prophetic tradition, redemption is not easy. Healing requires honesty. A nation must face the truth about its violence to be healed.
Seen this way, the killing in Minneapolis is not just a bad policy or a mistake. It reveals the weakness of our moral values and how easily we let legality take the place of justice. Officials have described the killing as a “tragedy,” language that suggests inevitability rather than accountability. Instead, we should use words like "breach" or "violation," which highlight responsibility and the choices and systems that led to this. Right appropriation of our language helps us see the problem more clearly and push us toward real change.
There will be investigations, official statements, and maybe calls for healing. But these things alone are not enough. Vernon Johns said that moments like this call for repentance, a real change from old ways to justice. Repentance means seeing silence as agreement and refusing to believe anyone is just a bystander. We will speak out against injustice wherever we see it. We will hold ourselves responsible by acting—through peaceful protest, voting, or supporting laws that demand change. We will question the stories that let injustice continue. Our voices will be heard, and our actions will show our commitment to justice.
John knew that details matter. He named the city, the year, and the pattern. When we speak in general terms, it lets people avoid responsibility. As historians of racial violence have noted, episodes like this echo a long American pattern, from the Jim Crow South to Ferguson and now Minneapolis.
So what is required of us now?
Will we, as a society, choose to break down the systems that allow this violence, or will we keep ignoring the calls for justice? First, we must stop keeping our distance. This killing is not just about policy or one agent; it is about America’s promise. State violence happens in our name. Being a citizen in a democracy means taking part, not just watching.
Second, we must commit to an ethic of humaneness that can truly change public life. This means demanding real accountability, creating systems that care for people instead of controlling them, and rejecting political stories that make us see our neighbors as threats instead of people with dignity.
Finally, we must have the courage to speak and act with honesty. Prophetic language is often seen as anger, but it is really an act of love. It keeps society from lying to itself and losing its moral way. Vernon Johns spoke out not because he hated America, but because he believed it could be better. That belief still inspires people who want a more just democracy.
The blood shed in Minneapolis calls out, as it has in the past. It does not call for shock, but for real change. The question is not whether we are sad, but whether we will change the conditions that allowed this to happen. Allowance for 'safe' murder must end. We need disciplined, unconditional love, not just pious words. Our democracy and our souls depend on it.




















Eric Trump, the newly appointed ALT5 board director of World Liberty Financial, walks outside of the NASDAQ in Times Square as they mark the $1.5- billion partnership between World Liberty Financial and ALT5 Sigma with the ringing of the NASDAQ opening bell, on Aug. 13, 2025, in New York City.
Why does the Trump family always get a pass?
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche joined ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday to defend or explain a lot of controversies for the Trump administration: the Epstein files release, the events in Minneapolis, etc. He was also asked about possible conflicts of interest between President Trump’s family business and his job. Specifically, Blanche was asked about a very sketchy deal Trump’s son Eric signed with the UAE’s national security adviser, Sheikh Tahnoon.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated in early 2025, Tahnoon invested $500 million in the Trump-owned World Liberty, a then newly launched cryptocurrency outfit. A few months later, UAE was granted permission to purchase sensitive American AI chips. According to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story, “the deal marks something unprecedented in American politics: a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming U.S. president’s company.”
“How do you respond to those who say this is a serious conflict of interest?” ABC host George Stephanopoulos asked.
“I love it when these papers talk about something being unprecedented or never happening before,” Blanche replied, “as if the Biden family and the Biden administration didn’t do exactly the same thing, and they were just in office.”
Blanche went on to boast about how the president is utterly transparent regarding his questionable business practices: “I don’t have a comment on it beyond Trump has been completely transparent when his family travels for business reasons. They don’t do so in secret. We don’t learn about it when we find a laptop a few years later. We learn about it when it’s happening.”
Sadly, Stephanopoulos didn’t offer the obvious response, which may have gone something like this: “OK, but the president and countless leading Republicans insisted that President Biden was the head of what they dubbed ‘the Biden Crime family’ and insisted his business dealings were corrupt, and indeed that his corruption merited impeachment. So how is being ‘transparent’ about similar corruption a defense?”
Now, I should be clear that I do think the Biden family’s business dealings were corrupt, whether or not laws were broken. Others disagree. I also think Trump’s business dealings appear to be worse in many ways than even what Biden was alleged to have done. But none of that is relevant. The standard set by Trump and Republicans is the relevant political standard, and by the deputy attorney general’s own account, the Trump administration is doing “exactly the same thing,” just more openly.
Since when is being more transparent about wrongdoing a defense? Try telling a cop or judge, “Yes, I robbed that bank. I’ve been completely transparent about that. So, what’s the big deal?”
This is just a small example of the broader dysfunction in the way we talk about politics.
Americans have a special hatred for hypocrisy. I think it goes back to the founding era. As Alexis de Tocqueville observed in “Democracy In America,” the old world had a different way of dealing with the moral shortcomings of leaders. Rank had its privileges. Nobles, never mind kings, were entitled to behave in ways that were forbidden to the little people.
In America, titles of nobility were banned in the Constitution and in our democratic culture. In a society built on notions of equality (the obvious exceptions of Black people, women, Native Americans notwithstanding) no one has access to special carve-outs or exemptions as to what is right and wrong. Claiming them, particularly in secret, feels like a betrayal against the whole idea of equality.
The problem in the modern era is that elites — of all ideological stripes — have violated that bargain. The result isn’t that we’ve abandoned any notion of right and wrong. Instead, by elevating hypocrisy to the greatest of sins, we end up weaponizing the principles, using them as a cudgel against the other side but not against our own.
Pick an issue: violent rhetoric by politicians, sexual misconduct, corruption and so on. With every revelation, almost immediately the debate becomes a riot of whataboutism. Team A says that Team B has no right to criticize because they did the same thing. Team B points out that Team A has switched positions. Everyone has a point. And everyone is missing the point.
Sure, hypocrisy is a moral failing, and partisan inconsistency is an intellectual one. But neither changes the objective facts. This is something you’re supposed to learn as a child: It doesn’t matter what everyone else is doing or saying, wrong is wrong. It’s also something lawyers like Mr. Blanche are supposed to know. Telling a judge that the hypocrisy of the prosecutor — or your client’s transparency — means your client did nothing wrong would earn you nothing but a laugh.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.