By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the fatal shooting of Renée Good by an ICE agent, the question of whether the officer can be prosecuted has arisen. Despite the Trump administration’s assertion of absolute immunity for the officer, legal expert Robert Bennett argues that ICE agents do not have such immunity and can be subject to state investigations, as supported by case law. Bennett highlights that the state of Minnesota has the right to prosecute the agent, though the FBI’s interference might complicate matters. He emphasizes that the use of deadly force must be objectively reasonable, and the fact that other officers did not fire their weapons could be damaging to the agent’s case.
Read the original article here
Misconduct expert says state has the right to charge ICE officer who killed Renée Good, and frankly, it’s pretty clear why. The facts, as presented, paint a disturbing picture, and the legal and ethical lines seem to have been crossed, quite possibly, with deadly force. The idea of the state’s right to pursue charges is not just about legal technicalities; it’s about upholding the trust we place in the systems that are supposed to protect us. It’s about ensuring accountability, especially when the actions of those in positions of authority lead to tragic consequences.
The narrative emerging from the available information suggests a series of failures, from the actions of the officer in question to the apparent lack of transparency in the aftermath. The video analysis referenced in the provided information strongly suggests that the officer, Jonathan Ross, was not in immediate danger, yet he proceeded to use lethal force. This alone raises serious questions about the use of force, which should have been avoided. Moreover, the violation of DOJ policy on the use of firearms, as outlined in the provided information, further strengthens the argument for the state’s right to charge. The policy clearly states that firearms should not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless specific criteria are met, and even then, there should be no other reasonable means of defense.
It’s difficult to ignore the pattern of behavior. The previous incidents highlighted indicate a potential recklessness, a willingness to escalate situations rather than de-escalate. It’s not a stretch to suggest that this incident was, perhaps, a tragic culmination of that pattern, which is why a state-level investigation becomes crucial.
The fact that the officer, Jonathan Ross, was employed and trained by ICE is another important factor in this discussion. It raises questions about the agency’s hiring practices, training protocols, and overall culture. The fact that ICE allegedly delayed medical aid to Renée Good, against established ethical and legal standards, adds another layer of severity.
It’s crucial to understand the limitations of presidential pardons in this context. While a presidential pardon could potentially affect federal charges, it does not absolve the officer from state charges. This is a fundamental aspect of the American legal system, which acknowledges the sovereignty of individual states. The state, in this case, Minnesota, has the authority to prosecute based on its own laws.
The delays, the lack of cooperation, and the potential attempts to obstruct the investigation raise serious concerns. When authorities are accused of blocking access to evidence, withholding information, and interfering with investigations, it undermines the foundation of justice. The public is left wondering if something is being covered up.
As we know, the goal is to show they can manipulate reality, and get away with it and flex power.
What more evidence is needed to charge someone? Let 12 people on a jury decide if shooting an unarmed woman through the side window of her car is a crime or not. Charge him, incarcerate him and sue him.
It’s about maintaining law and order, and upholding the integrity of the law enforcement system. It’s important to remember that the government has powers, derived from the authority given to them by people.
The focus should be on facts and standards, not speculation and vibes. The fact remains that video evidence and policy violations cast a dark shadow on the incident.
The implications extend far beyond this specific case. It underscores the importance of holding those in positions of power accountable, no matter who they are or what agency they represent.
This is a clear example of why states must act independently to ensure justice is served, even when faced with resistance or obstruction. The state’s right to charge in this situation is not just a legal technicality; it is a moral imperative. And that is why it is so important that the state continues to press on to determine justice is achieved.