By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Legal experts and officials refuted Vice President Vance’s claim that federal immigration agent Jonathan Ross had “absolute immunity” after fatally shooting Renee Good, emphasizing that no such legal precedent exists. Despite footage showing conflicting instructions given to Good and her car moving just before the shooting, Vance, along with other administration figures, blamed Good and blocked state investigations. Experts like Robert Bennett and Mary Moriarty confirmed ICE agents are not protected by absolute immunity, and constitutional law expert Michael J.Z. Mannheimer stated that state prosecutors can pursue charges against federal officials. The statements were met with criticism, with some calling the comments dangerous and expressing concerns about a shift toward a police state.
Read the original article here
To Be Clear, Contrary to Vance’s Claims, ICE Agents Do Not Have ‘Absolute Immunity,’ Say Legal Experts | “Just so you all understand what our vice tyrant is saying here this means ICE is allowed to shoot and kill Americans with ZERO consequences,” said one advocate. Let’s break this down. The core issue revolves around whether ICE agents possess “absolute immunity,” a concept that, if true, would mean they are shielded from any legal repercussions for their actions, even potentially deadly ones. Legal experts are firmly stating that this is not the case, directly contradicting claims made by figures like Vice President Vance. The implications of such a claim are enormous, suggesting a dangerous erosion of accountability and a potential green light for unchecked actions by federal agents.
It’s easy to see why this is causing such an uproar. The idea of “absolute immunity” is often associated with the concept of impunity—the ability to act without fear of punishment. When this is applied to law enforcement, especially in the context of potentially lethal force, it becomes a grave concern. The public rightfully questions who will hold these agents accountable if they are effectively untouchable. It raises a crucial question: who will be responsible for ensuring justice, especially when someone’s life is at stake?
The specific situation in Minneapolis, where an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good, highlights the stakes. Video footage of the incident reportedly shows a chaotic scene with conflicting instructions given to Good just before she was shot. The administration’s immediate response, which included blaming Good for her own death, fuels the perception of a cover-up and further underscores the urgency of demanding accountability. It makes you wonder how the city or state hasn’t issued a warrant for the ICE-hole’s arrest.
The narrative of “absolute immunity” paints a disturbing picture of a government agency operating outside the bounds of the law, where the law becomes whatever the ruling powers dictate. This is precisely the kind of situation that evokes comparisons to fascism, where unequal protection under the law is the norm. It’s a slippery slope. The lack of cooperation from the DOJ in investigations, as mentioned in some reports, only reinforces the sentiment that there’s no real oversight or consequence.
The legal reality, as clarified by experts, is that federal agents, including ICE agents, are not shielded by absolute immunity. While they may have some degree of protection through qualified immunity, this is not the same. Qualified immunity provides a shield from liability in certain situations, but it’s not a complete pass. It’s a prosecutor’s option, not a guaranteed get-out-of-jail-free card. And qualified immunity does not help much if someone is already dead.
The absence of charges against the ICE agent in the Minneapolis case raises critical questions. Are independent agencies enforcing the law? Is the system truly delivering justice? Many feel that until accountability is seen, any statements about immunity are misleading. The truth is, when the law is not enforced, then it is just words on paper.
The concern is valid, when those in positions of power make statements suggesting that agents are above the law, it creates a dangerous environment where those agents may feel emboldened to act with impunity. The fear is a chilling effect, leading to the erosion of trust in law enforcement and the justice system.
The argument is further complicated by political rhetoric and the actions of those in power. If high-ranking officials are actively trying to blame the victim, then who is watching the people in charge? It is very concerning. The discussion also needs to encompass the larger discussion of unchecked power, political agendas, and the potential for a government that is not truly accountable to the people it serves.
It’s not hard to see why this issue is so emotionally charged. The implications of this are so impactful on society. The people need to know that justice exists in the system to protect them. The current case is just another example of the erosion of rights and the ever-present danger of a government operating outside the law.