Self-defence? A breakdown of the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis | About That

I'm going to show you the moment an immigration officer shoots and kills a woman in Minneapolis, 37-year-old Renee Good. It's disturbing, but it's critical to understanding how the law will handle those who enforce it. And really, it boils down to about three seconds and three shots fired. The driver of an SUV reverses, pulls forward, and the agent in harm's way shoots and kills. These crucial moments, and very possibly this video in particular, the clearest I've yet to see,

form much of the basis of the official government account of what happened. That the driver was a violent rioter who weaponized her vehicle in an attempt to kill, and that the ICE officer, fearing for his life, fired defensive shots. Within hours of the incident, Donald Trump would agree with that version of events, saying the driver of the SUV violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer, while also claiming the officer seems to have shot her in self-defense. This vehicle was used to hit this officer.

It was used as a weapon, and the officer feels as though his life was in jeopardy.

I'm going to take you frame by frame through what we know from video evidence, expert opinion, and hard rules on the use of force, all of which could be used to determine whether this was indeed self-defense or something else.

Don't let the murderer leave!

We want the murderer of Renee Nicole Good to be brought to justice.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, ICE agents were carrying out a quote-unquote targeted operation in Minneapolis. And the official account is that civilians were trying to block them in. Video of the shooting about to unfold appears to support this, with this dark red SUV blocking the road. And these are ICE agents approaching the driver's side.

We can see from this other angle, the SUV is actually parked here for some period of time. This man right here is the officer who, within moments, you will see drawing his gun. He's filming the car, walking around it, then disappears out of frame.

Back to the other angle. The armed, hooded agents approach, ordering the driver blocking their way to get out of the car. You can see here, the reverse lights go on. Just a split second before this

ICE agent puts his hand on the door handle. He's going to try to open that door but it's locked. The voice we're hearing there is of a bystander. What we can't hear is the driver herself. That's a key piece of evidence we're missing because when weighing the totality of what's happened, the apparent fight or flight of the driver absolutely factors in.

That can include verbal cues, facial tics, whatever you're seeing. You know, someone has a look in their eye. You need to get in there, interview the officers who were right there, interview the officer himself involved in the shooting, get a better understanding of what it was he was seeing,

what led him to believe that this posed such an imminent danger. Now if we pause the video again right here, a whole series of things are about to happen in rapid succession and I'll break them down one by one. First, you'll notice the reverse lights are off, the car's back in drive, and for the briefest of moments, at a complete stop. Second, the agent who just tried to open the driver's side door has now reached inside the vehicle itself.

But third, and most importantly, we now see a third ICE officer emerge. This is the one we saw earlier, filming the vehicle circling around it. He's in front of the vehicle now, and he's drawing his gun.

There's no restriction about when you can take your weapon out of your holster or not, but normally it's when you feel like you are a potential threat. For instance, if you're engaged in an arrest, you have your weapon out, in most cases, during an arrest.

It's as the vehicle starts to accelerate forward, turning to the right, away from the officer with the gun, he fires three distinct shots.

Yay! Yay! the right, away from the officer with the gun, he fires three distinct shots.

The driver immediately loses control of the vehicle. Seconds later, it crashes hard into a parked vehicle on the side of the road. And we learn later, the driver's dead. So knowing how the altercation ends, let's play that video out once again without stopping and starting. Then we'll consider whether this supports or discredits the Trump administration version

of events.

No! No! Shame! Shame! Shame!

In considering the federal narrative of what happened, let's go from easy to hard. Recall the story told by the President of the United States that the driver of the SUV violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE officer.

It is incorrect to over the ICE officer.

It is incorrect to say the ICE officer was run over because he wasn't. He's on his feet in front of the vehicle as the driver hits the gas. He appears to almost jump out of the way and by the time he's firing his second and third shots

he's clear of the vehicle's path. He's still standing even as the driver loses control and within seconds he's walking of the vehicle's path. He's still standing, even as the driver loses control. And within seconds, he's walking towards the car after it's crashed. What we can't be sure of at this point is whether he was actually clipped by the car. Trump's account is that the officer took time to recover in hospital, and he offered this video as proof that the officer was indeed hit. From this

angle, it does seem possible that he was, but it's not conclusive. The video is so grainy, and honestly it's hard to tell whether the compression of the zoom is just making it look like he was hit, or whether he was actually hit. Going back to this angle, it's still not totally clear to me whether he was or wasn't. It's hard to tell if he's pushed back by the car or he's simply jumping back out of the way.

In any case, the real legal question at hand isn't actually so much about whether the officer was run over. It's whether he was justified in shooting and killing the driver.

As he was crossing in front of a vehicle, which the training says you shouldn't do that.

You shouldn't cross in front of a vehicle. And whether the training was followed is one thing to consider. This policy directive from the Department of Homeland Security states, DHS law enforcement officers should avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force. Translation, if you truly believe the subject you're dealing with is a violent and dangerous rioter, it is not standard

procedure to then step in front of the vehicle that they're driving. But what

about when the situation turns deadly? What I see is very clear. I see somebody not listening to law enforcement, backing up, accelerating right into an ICE agent.

What do you see?

What I see is a vehicle being used as a deadly force weapon. And that, in my opinion, based on my training, deadly force is justified.

ICE has its own handbook, its own principles governing the use of force. And here's the entry on deadly force, which stipulates it may only be used in situations when an officer has probable cause that the detainee poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person. But importantly, deadly force may not be used solely to prevent

the escape of a fleeing suspect. So, let's look again at the clearest video we have. The operative question here, which really only a thorough investigation is going to be able to answer, was this driver fleeing from ICE agents or actually trying to run one over?

And importantly, whether it was reasonable for the officer to think it was the latter.

The officer cannot read the mind of the driver. He only sees the vehicle coming towards him, accelerating towards him, and he is in the pathway. And so the evaluation is, given these circumstances, what would a reasonably, a reasonable officer do in that circumstance?

What makes cases like this really difficult is that you're going to hear fierce opinion from both sides. One attorney, as on Fox News, saying this.

You know, you can freeze frame it, you can go forward a frame, oh here she seems to turn to the right. The bottom line is that agent had about a quarter of a second to make a decision, and when he made that decision, that call was accelerating towards him.

But then another attorney, obviously a Democrat, saying the opposite, calling Trump's explanation pure gaslighting.

What I can tell you is the narrative that this was just done in self-defense is a garbage narrative. That is bullshit. This was an agent recklessly using power that

resulted in somebody dying. Originally the state of Minnesota led by Democratic governor Tim Walz says it asked to be part of the investigation into this deadly shooting. But now, the federal attorney's office says they're off the case. The FBI, headed by Trump appointee Kash Patel, The FBI, headed by Trump appointee Kash Patel,

is the sole investigative authority on this matter.