By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Jonathan Ross, the ICE officer involved in the fatal shooting of Renee Good, has been identified as a veteran deportation officer and member of a Special Response Team. Evidence reveals Ross’ history includes a previous incident where he fired his Taser at a driver, Roberto Carlos Muñoz-Guatemala, who subsequently drove away, resulting in Ross being injured. In the Muñoz-Guatemala incident, Ross claimed he had been nearly killed. The recent shooting in Minneapolis is under investigation, with officials, including Vice President JD Vance, addressing the incident and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirsti Noem describing Good’s actions as “domestic terrorism.”
Read the original article here
ICE Agent Who Reportedly Shot Renee Good Was a Firearms Trainer, per Testimony is a stark reminder of the gravity of the situation, especially when considering the details emerging about the ICE agent involved. The revelation that the agent was a firearms trainer, as per testimony, adds a chilling layer to the narrative. This suggests a level of expertise and training that, if misused, can have devastating consequences. The fact that he was specifically a firearms trainer is particularly concerning. This isn’t just someone who knows how to handle a gun; it’s someone trained to teach others, implying a deep understanding of weapon proficiency, tactics, and potentially, the use-of-force continuum.
The statement by Vance, that the ICE officer had been “nearly had his life ended, dragged by a car, six months ago, 33 stitches in his leg,” brings into question the agent’s mental state and fitness for duty. This suggests that the agent might not have been in the right condition to be out in the field. The comments seem to emphasize the question of whether this agent was receiving adequate mental health support and if he should have been assigned desk duty to receive mental health treatment for his trauma. This detail underscores the potential for psychological trauma and the importance of mental health considerations in law enforcement, especially when coupled with the responsibility of carrying a firearm.
The observation that the officer was “a member of a Special Response Team, ICE’s version of a SWAT team” heightens the implications, adding weight to the agent’s level of training and the high-stakes environment in which he operates. The comment that this officer had duties as a firearms trainer and led teams drawn from multiple federal agencies including the FBI, provides another dimension to the situation. It suggests not only technical expertise but also a leadership role.
The perception that the officer’s actions were disproportionate, as indicated by the reported shooting of Renee Good, who was allegedly not posing an immediate lethal threat, presents a serious problem. The fact that the agent was a firearms trainer only amplifies the concerns about his actions. The question of whether the agent should have been in the field at all, given his recent history, looms large.
The comments also reflect a deep frustration with law enforcement and a call for accountability. The sense that the officer “knew better” and the implication that his actions were a result of ingrained training and a “shoot first, ask questions later” mentality suggests a critical view on current law enforcement training practices.
The reference to the Department of Justice’s policy on the use of force, specifically the conditions under which an officer may discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle, serves as a point of comparison and a potential basis for evaluating the agent’s actions. The emphasis on the necessity of either the target threatening the officer with deadly force or the officer being unable to move out of the path of the vehicle sets a clear standard for the use of lethal force.
The suggestion that the agent “was creaming in his pants to finally get to use that draw stroke he’d practiced 10,000 times” is a particularly scathing and condemning view. It implies that the officer was more interested in using his weapon than in de-escalating the situation or following proper protocol.
The use of the term “ammosexual” to describe the agent’s alleged attitude towards firearms underscores a distrust of this individual. This is a pointed criticism of a potential mindset and suggests that the agent’s actions were driven by something other than a desire to protect and serve. This type of attitude, if present, is deeply worrying, especially in someone who is supposed to be a representative of law enforcement.
The idea that the agent placed himself in harm’s way, making the situation dangerous and deadly, raises the question of whether the agent had the correct judgment and situational awareness. This suggests that there could have been incompetence involved or that the officer acted in a manner that disregarded the safety of others.
The tone of the comments strongly suggests that the circumstances of the shooting demand a thorough investigation. The implication is that the agent’s actions, given his role as a firearms trainer, his recent history, and the potential for a “warrior mentality,” warrant a critical examination of his training, his fitness for duty, and the overall culture within ICE. The question arises of what kind of training he was providing. Is it possible he was trained to shoot first and ask questions later?
The repeated use of “Reportedly?” in the context of the title and the incident highlights a distrust of the official narrative and a desire for transparency and accountability. The fact that the shooting was captured on video only strengthens the demand for a detailed, public analysis of the events.