By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Hennepin County Medical Examiner’s Office has ruled the death of Renee Good a homicide, caused by multiple gunshot wounds. Good was shot by ICE agent Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis on January 7th while in her vehicle, which then crashed. Her family’s attorney stated they are awaiting the full report and hope to discuss the findings with the family before any further public release. The shooting is under investigation, with federal officials’ account of the incident being disputed by local authorities and Good’s family.
Read the original article here
Medical Examiner Rules Renee Good’s Death a Homicide from ‘Multiple Gunshot Wounds’
The stark reality of Renee Good’s death has been laid bare, with the medical examiner’s determination that her death was a homicide caused by “multiple gunshot wounds.” This isn’t a complex medical mystery; it’s a straightforward pronouncement of a life taken by another. It’s a truth that cuts through any attempts to obfuscate or justify the actions that led to this tragic outcome. The medical examiner’s findings are a critical piece of the puzzle, confirming what many already suspected: this wasn’t an accident. It was the result of deliberate actions.
This ruling carries significant weight, clarifying the manner of death, which is a crucial step in the process of seeking justice. While the term “homicide” itself doesn’t automatically equate to “murder” in the legal sense – it simply means one person killed another – it establishes the foundational fact that a life was intentionally ended. The specifics of the case, including the number of shots fired and their trajectories, will be critical in determining the legality of the actions and if they amounted to criminal murder.
The details of the shooting itself, as reported by a former prosecutor, are particularly damning. The information suggests the fatal shot, the one that ended Renee Good’s life, was delivered from a position that didn’t align with a scenario of self-defense. The prosecutor’s statement that the final shot was fired while the shooter was a safe distance away and with no immediate threat to his own safety paints a grim picture. This suggests a calculated act, not a panicked reaction.
The reaction to this situation is already playing out, and it’s something we’ve come to expect. Certain groups are likely to use this to advance their own agendas, regardless of the truth. But, it is vital to acknowledge that a death caused by gunshots, whether justified or not, is classified as a homicide. The medical examiner’s role is to determine the *cause* and *manner* of death, not to pass legal judgments on the intentions of those involved.
The aftermath of this tragedy will likely involve a defense strategy, perhaps attempting to discredit the medical examiner’s findings or to offer an alternative narrative. But the evidence, including the physical evidence from the autopsy and witness testimony, should ultimately prevail.
The fact that the shooter was allegedly calm and collected during the encounter, as reported by some observers, further weakens any claim of self-defense. The emotional response, often associated with a situation where one’s life is in danger, was apparently missing. Instead, the shooter was composed and deliberate, which makes his actions seem even more premeditated.
The involvement of other officers present at the scene is another crucial factor. If they did not take action to de-escalate the situation or ensure the safety of those involved, they could be seen as complicit in the events that unfolded. Their inaction would be a troubling sign of a larger issue within the system.
The potential for political maneuvering and the manipulation of public opinion is always present in such high-profile cases. We should anticipate efforts to portray the medical examiner as biased or politically motivated, which is a common tactic to undermine credibility when the findings challenge a particular narrative.
The legal process will be crucial in determining the consequences for those responsible. Evidence will be presented, witnesses will testify, and a jury or judge will weigh the facts to arrive at a verdict. The medical examiner’s ruling is a critical piece of evidence, but it’s only the beginning of a complex legal journey.
This is a stark reminder that actions have consequences. The medical examiner’s report, along with the other evidence, tells a story of a life tragically cut short. The path toward justice may be long and arduous, but the truth is evident in the facts of the case.