By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, has declared it will not investigate the killing of Renee Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross, citing the availability of video evidence and a lack of justification for such an investigation. Despite the DOJ’s refusal, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County District Attorney Mary Moriarty have vowed to proceed with their own investigation, though they have been denied access to evidence collected by the Justice Department. The DOJ is, however, investigating Good’s widow and local officials, while also accusing them of obstructing ICE. This decision has spurred the resignation of numerous Justice Department attorneys, highlighting the controversy surrounding the administration’s actions.
Read the original article here
Trump Official Says It Won’t Investigate the Killing of Renee Good is the focus, and it’s a stark reality we have to grapple with. The refusal to investigate the death of Renee Good, allegedly at the hands of an ICE agent, sends a chilling message. It suggests a complete disregard for accountability and the rule of law, and that’s a dangerous precedent.
It’s one thing not to launch an investigation, but another to actively obstruct state and local investigators, as seems to have happened here. Denying access to evidence, essentially shutting down any chance of a thorough examination, points towards something more sinister. This is not just about a lack of interest; it’s a deliberate effort to bury the truth, and that’s not acceptable in a functioning democracy.
The potential implications of this decision are vast and troubling. If agents feel they are above the law, what’s to prevent abuses of power? What stops an agent from opening fire on a crowd if they feel threatened, knowing there might be no repercussions? The message it sends is clear: certain individuals are shielded, while others are expendable.
The lack of an investigation into Renee Good’s death suggests the law may not apply to everyone equally. This erodes public trust and fuels the perception of a system rigged in favor of those in power. It’s a blatant disregard for the value of a life. The silence on the part of those in charge speaks volumes.
The article brings up a point about the lack of investigation: it is grounds for concern. There is a sense of outrage, a feeling that a line has been crossed. It reveals a deep-seated contempt for justice and a willingness to protect those who commit violence, which is an infuriating thought.
The implication that this decision is somehow tied to political affiliation or ideology is alarming. It creates a climate of fear and division, and it’s a dangerous path to tread. The focus on protesters and the willingness to pursue them with vigor while turning a blind eye to the actions of an ICE agent. This demonstrates a clear bias.
The writer also points to the absurdity of the “shock” expressed by some when this outcome was inevitable. The normalcy bias is called out, the tendency to believe that things will remain the same, despite clear evidence to the contrary. Ignoring past actions by the Trump administration will not change the trajectory of justice.
The question of why the investigation will not happen is raised. The perpetrators are known, and yet there will be no accountability at the federal level. Meanwhile, if an ICE agent so much as scratches themselves, the full force of the law will come down on those perceived as threats.
The article takes an interesting turn, pointing out that, in America, you can get shot in the face, and nothing happens. It’s a stark indictment of the state of justice, and it’s not a new observation.
The suggestion of releasing all evidence to state authorities is a reasonable one, allowing them to do what the federal government refuses to do. The writer suggests that, at the very least, Jonathan Ross should stand trial for manslaughter.
The observation that an officer-involved shooting in Minnesota involves a different police department, the MN BCA, and a thorough investigation makes the lack of federal investigation even more glaring. It highlights the hypocrisy and the double standard.
The article concludes with a sense of resignation but also a glimmer of hope that the state of Minnesota might take action. The importance of justice, even in the face of blatant injustice, is emphasized. The refusal to investigate Renee Good’s death is a dangerous indicator.