The fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother by a federal immigration officer has ignited a fierce debate over the use of deadly force, with former law enforcement officials and legal experts strongly disputing the Trump administration's justification for the killing.
Questioning the Official Narrative
On Friday 09 January 2026, the administration of President Donald Trump reiterated its claim that the shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good, a mother of three, was justified. Officials alleged she was a "violent rioter" who used her car to ram an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent in an act of "domestic terrorism." The officer, identified as Jonathan Ross, reportedly fired three shots because he feared for his life.
However, this account is being challenged by those with extensive experience in policing and use-of-force guidelines. Diane Goldstein, a former police lieutenant and executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, told USA Today that policy must always prioritise using the least amount of force to preserve life. She argued that witness footage suggests "a lack of supervision, a lack of training and a lack of understanding" of de-escalation tactics.
A Breakdown of the Confrontation
Video analysis from multiple sources, including footage recorded by Ross himself, shows masked ICE officers approaching a Honda Pilot on a residential street. Ross is seen getting out of his vehicle and approaching Good's car while her partner films him. Another car arrives with two more officers.
An officer is heard shouting "get out of the f****** car" while another places a hand on the driver's side window. Good's car then reverses slightly before pulling forward and veering to the right. As it moves, Ross positions himself in front of the vehicle. He then fires three shots. The car accelerates and crashes into a parked vehicle further down the street.
Retired ICE agent Eric Balliet questioned why an officer would place himself on foot in front of a moving car. "You're almost inducing a shooting if that person decides to flee," he told USA Today. He emphasised that fleeing alone does not justify deadly force; the threshold is whether the officer's life or another's was in imminent danger.
Legal Standards and Immunity Claims
Experts point to clear federal guidelines that prohibit firing at moving vehicles unless there is no other reasonable means of defence, which includes moving out of the vehicle's path. The Department of Homeland Security's policy similarly states such force is "prohibited" without a "reasonable belief" of an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
This incident echoes a major Supreme Court decision from last year, where justices unanimously rejected arguments that an officer was justified after shooting at a fleeing car. The court stressed the "totality of the circumstances" standard, not just the moment of perceived threat.
Meanwhile, Vice President JD Vance has falsely claimed Ross has "absolute immunity" from prosecution. Constitutional law expert Michael J.Z. Mannheimer called this idea "absolutely ridiculous." While Minnesota could bring charges, the officer could seek to move the case to federal court and argue immunity. To succeed, the state would need to prove his actions were objectively unreasonable or clearly unlawful.
The FBI is investigating but has reportedly excluded local authorities. Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty stated clearly: "I can say the ICE officer does not have complete immunity here." Advocates continue to demand criminal charges as the national debate over policing and accountability intensifies.
