Lawmakers who once endorsed federal guidance recognizing the dangers officers face now dispute claims of self-defense following a deadly immigration enforcement encounter.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Democrat officials who previously supported federal policies acknowledging the life-threatening risks faced by immigration officers are now disputing claims of self-defense after a fatal shooting during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation in Minneapolis, a shift critics describe as a sharp reversal from earlier positions.
The dispute follows the Wednesday shooting death of Renee Good, who federal authorities say attempted to use her vehicle as a weapon against ICE agents during an enforcement action. Democrats in Minnesota and elsewhere have argued the officer involved used excessive force, despite prior Democratic administrations endorsing guidance that recognized “dangerous situations” in which officers may be forced to make split-second decisions, as detailed in a Just the News report.
According to federal authorities, the shooting occurred after Good’s vehicle blocked a roadway during the operation. Officers ordered her to exit the car, but video shows the vehicle briefly reversing and then accelerating forward, striking an agent. The agent fired several shots into the vehicle, and Good later died from her injuries.
Newly released close-up footage filmed by the agent who fired the shots appears to show the vehicle turning toward him and accelerating at the moment he discharged his weapon. The video, obtained by Alpha News, has been cited by federal officials as evidence the shots were defensive.
The agent, identified as Jonathan Ross, was previously dragged by a vehicle during an attempted arrest last year and required hospitalization and dozens of stitches, according to reporting that identified him following the Minneapolis shooting.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said at a Wednesday press conference that the incident appeared to be an attempt to seriously injure or kill federal agents. Calling the act “domestic terrorism,” Noem said the agent fired defensive shots and “used his training to save his own life and that of his colleagues,” remarks echoed in contemporaneous coverage of the event.
Local Democratic leaders sharply disagreed. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said publicly that the video evidence did not support a claim of self-defense. “This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying,” Frey said during a news conference. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz announced the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension would conduct a parallel inquiry, though federal authorities have so far declined to participate in the state probe, according to reporting on the governor’s warning and investigation plans.
The political divide contrasts with positions taken during the Obama administration, when Customs and Border Protection—an agency closely aligned with ICE—issued guidance acknowledging the hazards agents face. In a March 2014 memorandum, then–Border Patrol Chief Michael J. Fisher wrote that agents routinely confront tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances requiring immediate decisions. The memo also addressed encounters involving vehicles, stating agents should not fire at moving vehicles unless they reasonably believe deadly force is being used against them, language preserved in the 2014 directive.
Updated Homeland Security use-of-force standards issued in 2023 under Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas largely track that framework, stating officers may use force only when no safe alternative exists and only to the degree objectively reasonable under the circumstances, as outlined in the current policy.
Former federal agents interviewed by Just the News said the Minneapolis shooting is likely to be deemed justified under those standards. Jonathan Gilliam, a former FBI special agent and Navy SEAL, said the video led him to immediately conclude the shooting was justified. Art Del Cueto, a former Border Patrol agent and current adviser with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said investigators typically assess whether a suspect had the means, intent, and opportunity to cause harm—criteria he argued were met in this case, as discussed during a Just the News interview.
Despite that assessment, Del Cueto cautioned that state or local authorities could still pursue charges based on their own interpretation of the evidence, potentially sidelining the agent for an extended period even if the shooting is ultimately ruled justified.
Questions have also emerged over whether the agent would enjoy immunity from state prosecution. While Vice President J.D. Vance said federal officers have “absolute immunity”, legal analysts note the issue is more complex. Reporting has highlighted that federal agents can, in some circumstances, face state charges, a point raised in coverage by outlets ranging from the New York Times to legal commentary circulated online.
Former federal prosecutor Timothy Sini said officers do not automatically receive absolute immunity and that any claim would depend on whether the agent was acting within official duties and whether the conduct was objectively reasonable, an analysis he outlined in remarks to CNN.
As investigations continue, the case has sharpened an already intense debate over immigration enforcement, police use of force, and whether political leaders are applying different standards now than those they once endorsed when setting federal policy.
Original article
Comments