By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An independent autopsy commissioned by the family of Renee Good revealed she sustained three gunshot wounds, including a fatal shot to the head. The other shots struck her left forearm and right breast, though neither was immediately life-threatening. The incident, captured on video, involved an encounter with ICE officer Jonathan Ross, during which Good was shot while attempting to drive away. Homeland Security officials have stated that Good refused to comply with officer commands and was a “domestic terrorist” but the FBI is investigating the shooting.
Read the original article here
Renee Good was shot in the head, autopsy commissioned by her family finds, and this is the crux of the matter. The headline says it all: Renee Good was murdered. It’s a stark assessment, and the details emerging from the autopsy are painting a grim picture. This isn’t just about a tragic loss of life; it’s about the circumstances surrounding it, the actions leading up to it, and the potential for accountability.
The crucial finding centers around the fatal shot: it entered near her left temple and exited her right temple. This, as the autopsy suggests, is critical evidence. It significantly changes the narrative. If the shot that killed her came from the side, through the driver’s side window, it undermines any claims of the officer acting in self-defense or facing an immediate threat. If the officer wasn’t directly in front of the car, this complicates his defense.
The angle of the shot, through the side of her head, is of paramount importance. It directly contradicts any notion of an “imminent threat” justifying the use of lethal force. This makes all the difference in the world. It shifts the focus from a split-second decision made under pressure to a calculated act, potentially an execution.
One of the key points to consider is the sequence of events. There were reports of other gunshot wounds, and the location of the fatal bullet is the key. The location of the entrance and exit wounds in her head, combined with other ballistics data, is the essential element here. It’s about piecing together the timeline, the angles, and the intent behind each shot fired. This provides a clear picture of what happened, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The video footage, too, plays a pivotal role in establishing the context of the shooting. It’s essential to look at the actions of the ICE agent leading up to the shooting, and how those actions influenced the situation. It all matters because that will clarify if the agent felt his life was in danger.
The debate, or rather, the arguments that will undoubtedly arise, center on the justification for the use of force. Was the officer’s life in danger? Did he follow his training? Or, as the autopsy suggests, was this a case of excessive force? These questions are at the heart of this tragedy.
The implication of the fatal shot’s trajectory is that the officer fired when he was no longer directly in front of the vehicle, shooting through the open window of her car. This would be a game-changer. It puts into question the claim of self-defense.
Ultimately, the autopsy findings are not just about medical details; they are about establishing facts. It’s about verifying what happened and how it happened. It removes doubt. The findings will be used in court as evidence in a murder investigation.
This case is not just about one life lost. It also raises questions about law enforcement training, accountability, and the consequences of actions. The autopsy is just the beginning of a legal process.