On the morning of Jan. 7th in Minneapolis, Minnesota, federal ICE Agent Johnathan Ross fatally shot wife and mother Renee Good during an escalated encounter between ICE agents.

During the incident, a couple of ICE agents, including Ross, surrounded Good’s vehicle as she was stopped on the street. After a brief verbal exchange and attempts by agents to open her car door, Good began to drive away. Ross then fired three shots, fatally striking Good in the head.

Much of the public is divided over whether the shots Ross took were warranted. Opinions are evenly split, with one half suggesting the shots were justified, while the other half believes the shots were unnecessary.

After watching the film, I do not believe Agent Ross needed to fire his weapon to resolve the conflict with Good. The ICE agent-encounter could have ended with Renee alive.

Instead of debating the legality of the shooting, my focus is on discrediting the decision that led to the use of deadly force. Therefore my question is:

Did Agent Ross need to use deadly force to avoid being hit by Renee Good’s vehicle?

Obviously not.

If Agent Ross’ main priority was to avoid being struck by Good’s vehicle, then he simply would have chosen to move out of the path of the SUV.

There was no need to escalate the situation by using deadly force. 

If you were standing near a vehicle and it suddenly began moving, is your instinct to somehow attack the driver or to simply move away from the vehicle’s path?

Now from here, some would say “Renee must’ve been aggressive,” or “things were escalating quickly.” I proudly beg to differ.

Video recently surfaced of Agent Ross’ own recording and point of view where Good calmly and with a light smile addressed him repeatedly, saying “I’m not mad at you.” Her composed attitude alone would suggest that she was neither aggressive nor a threat to anyone around.

To add, Ross spent more time standing in front of the vehicle aiming for Good with his weapon than he did shifting himself away from the moving SUV. It did not appear that he was prioritizing his own safety, rather, he took the shot because the opportunity was available. 

Opposers may ask, “If Ross had the legal right to shoot Renee, then what would be wrong with doing so?” That is a fair and important question, because it draws attention to the distinction between what the law permits and what moral judgment demands.

Just because something may be legal does not mean it was the best decision. Even if Ross were to get indicted and found not guilty of any crime, it would not change the idea that Ross could have taken other measures and avoided fatally shooting Renee Good.

Because federal agents are tasked with protecting U.S. citizens, there is a heightened responsibility to prevent unnecessary escalation, particularly when those in positions of power overstep their authority in ways that cost innocent lives.

As I’ve said before, I’m not arguing if Agent Ross had the legal right to use deadly force. I am stating that regardless of any legal liability he may or may not face, the fact remains that if Ross was strictly trying to avoid getting hit by Good’s vehicle, then he did not need to escalate the situation in a way that resulted in the death of Renee Good—moving out of the SUV’s path was a more reasonable and available alternative.