Civics class taught us that elected members of Congress enact our laws. The president — through his appointees and their employees — then executes these policy choices. Law enforcement officers (as the name suggests) enforce these laws. Their job is to do so, whether or not they support the law. Passing laws is subject to debate, but enforcing laws isn’t optional. As a prosecutor myself, I took an oath to do this. (RELATED: Are They Illegal? Because If They’re Illegal, That’s Why They’re Getting Arrested) Polling indicates a loud minority of Americans oppose enforcement of the immigration laws that make it a crime to enter the United States illegally. These dissenters have two basic options. The first is to convince a majority of Congress (a supermajority if they expect a presidential veto) to change that law and allow anyone in the world to enter and enjoy our myriad free or low-cost welfare, education, housing, and health benefits. But it takes a lot of work to convince enough voters to encourage their lawmakers to make such a change. That’s why many of those who want more lax immigration laws take the second option — an easier, but less principled approach. It involves getting in the face of federal law enforcement agents, screaming obscenities at them, blowing deafening whistles, and — all too often — threatening their lives. These protestors, the violent and less so, mistakenly believe that policy change requires hateful stunts. It’s similar to, but more dangerous than, toddlers holding their breath to get the candy they demand for dinner. (RELATED: Abusing Border Patrol Agents: Echoes of Vietnam) Until recently, this wrongheaded approach has been largely low-life theater, with many of the C-list actors being yanked off stage and sent to jail. But this week, the pour-gasoline-on-a-fire performers finally caused a conflagration, and one of their own tragically died as a result. After Nicole Good recklessly tried to use her car to interfere with the lawful activities of ICE agents in Minneapolis, she sought to escape by pointing the car directly at an officer and accelerating. Video shows her tires positioned directly at him as she floored the accelerator, and the shot that the officer was forced to fire in those milliseconds went through her front windshield, killing her. If an officer has an objectively reasonable belief that someone’s actions put the officer or others at risk of death or any serious bodily injury, the law empowers that officer to use deadly force to stop that threat. I’ve worked on dozens of officer-involved shootings, and those of us who do this work know the standard comes straight from the U.S. Supreme Court: if an officer has an objectively reasonable belief that someone’s actions put the officer or others at risk of death or any serious bodily injury, the law empowers that officer to use deadly force to stop that threat. A police officer in Ohio was in a nearly identical situation when an escaping suspect accelerated into the officer, lifting his feet off the ground. He stopped the threat with one shot through the windshield, yet politically motivated prosecutors still charged him with murder. The jury quickly acquitted him. Why? It should be obvious: the law authorizes an officer to use deadly force when a deadly weapon — a 4,000-pound car — is aimed directly at him and moving. Many prominent Democrats immediately made things worse by claiming, despite manifest evidence to the contrary, that the ICE officer committed murder. The president weighed in, as well. Prudent leaders avoid bombast on criminal matters that are a few hours old, but such discretion now seems as antiquated as a daily newspaper on the front porch. As a politically tinged, symbolic stunt, prosecutors in Minneapolis will likely charge the officer in state court. Luckily, such cases can be removed to federal court, where a fairer process exists. Relentless agitation has turned destructive, even lethal, convincing one woman that those enforcing the law are responsible for the law itself. It’s sad and maddening all at once. It’s past time for those who seek change to respect the rule of law (and those who enforce it), express their dissent peacefully, and work through the democratic law-making process. That’s how responsible adults act. Changing a law is intentionally tedious: committees, hearings, and votes. It’s slow, but the deliberative process and consensus-building cement legitimacy. Those opposing a law ought to change it through elections and legislation — not through threats and chaos. Civic dissent should be loud but lawful; anything else is a spark in a dry forest. READ MORE from Mark R. Weaver: Hillary and Obama Out-McCarthied McCarthy Mark R. Weaver is an Ohio prosecutor and a former spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice. X:@MarkRWeaver