Below is my column in The Hill on the refusal of many to consider all of the facts in the shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis. The myopic analysis of press and pundits shows how the tragedy is being weaponized for political purposes.
Here is the column:
In a famous Indian parable, five blind men are brought to an elephant. Each feels a different part of the animal, and they come to radically different views of what an elephant is. It depended on which parts they touched, from tusk to tail.
The controversy over the shooting of Renee Nicole Good, 37, is a type of political elephant parable. People focus on only certain parts of the story to support what they want the case to mean.
Critics and supporters of the responsible officer have slowed down videotapes that last, in critical part, for only a few seconds.
The only difference is that, in this modern parable, many are just willfully blind, choosing not to see beyond their own rage.
This week, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey (D) became the personification of rage, spewing profanities about ICE while declaring, shortly after the shooting, that the ICE officer was a murderer.
After immediately declaring the officer’s guilt, Frey spent day two lambasting the federal government for rushing to conclusions and demanding that his people play a role in the investigation.
As for his unhinged, profane diatribe, Frey mocked critics if he “offended their Disney princess ears.”
Frey fulfilled the parable most clearly in his use of statistics. He declared that fifty percent of shootings in the city this year were committed by ICE. He then later admitted that, since it was only Jan. 9, there had been only two shootings. Indeed, he could have argued that ICE was responsible for 100 percent of the shootings in the city on Jan. 7.
Again, the trick is to examine the smallest part of the animal and extrapolate to draw sweeping conclusions.
The recently released videotape from the responsible officer also shows how people will focus on insular elements rather than the “totality of the circumstances,” the standard for such cases established by the Supreme Court.
For example, many supporters of the officer are citing the obstruction and taunting by Good and her wife, who were reportedly working with an anti-ICE group. At one point, Becca Good dares the officer to do something as they blocked the road, telling the officer “Do you want to come at us? I say go and get yourself some lunch, big boy.”
For critics, they have focused on Renee Good’s last words: “That’s fine dude, I’m not mad at you, I’m not mad at any of you.” Whether Good was being peaceful or passive-aggressive, others are clearly very, very mad. They are using her statement to push protesters to the brink of violence.
Democratic leaders declared ICE to be “terrorists” and called for mass protests in the very same city that burned in 2020 after the George Floyd riots. Right on cue, one Black Lives Matter leader suggested that the prosecution of officers in the George Floyd case only occurred because protesters burned down the city. She told protesters to ignore pleas not to do it again. “Let me tell you this. We need justice and we need it now.”
Protesters in other cities chanted “Kristi Noem will hang” and “Save a Life, Kill an ICE.”
In the same presser where he condemned federal officials for jumping to conclusions, Frey not only reaffirmed that Good had been murdered but added that the officer was not actually injured as claimed. “The ICE agent walked away with a hip injury that he might as well have gotten from closing a refrigerator door with his hips,” he said. “He was not injured. Give me a break. No, he was not ran over. He walked out of there with a hop in his step.”
Few of us have been in Frey’s kitchen, but the latest videotape seems to show something more intense than an encounter with his fridge. The video shows the agent being hit by the vehicle as Good ignores orders to get out of the car, as Becca Good is screaming, “drive, drive, drive.”
Reasonable people can disagree on whether the officer should have discharged his weapon. Flight alone is not grounds for the use of lethal force. However, Good’s actions could also be interpreted as an intentional endangerment of the officer.
At a minimum, it was clearly reckless, as another officer was trying to reach into the vehicle and Good refused to yield to the effort to place her into custody. The Goods forced the confrontation, and Renee Good then escalated the level of danger by speeding toward an officer.
This is why the legal standard requires you to take in the entire elephant, not just insular parts.
While there may still be countervailing facts emerging from the investigation, the governing legal standard clearly favors the officer. It is Good’s actions, not her motivations, that are critical to determining whether excessive force was used. The officer’s cellphone video shows he had a fraction of a second to decide and fired after being struck by the car. (The same officer had been seriously hurt previously after being dragged by a car.)
The Justice Department’s guidances incorporate the standards outlined in past Supreme Court decisions, such as Graham v. Connor (1989). Again, individual elements can be viewed in isolation as favoring or disfavoring the use of force, including the severity of the crime at issue (in this case likely a misdemeanor) and whether the suspect was “attempting to evade arrest by flight.” The guidelines stress that “[t]he ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
This tragedy shows that people watching the same videotapes can come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Take the speed of the vehicle. Some have noted that the car was traveling less than 10 miles per hour before it collided with another vehicle. However, the speed after the shooting of Good is immaterial. The relevant question is the distance and speed with reference to the officer. It was clearly speeding up and immediately struck the officer before Good was shot.
The same is true of those who note how the wheels appear to be turning toward or away from the officer. The fact is, Good struck the officer. That does not mean she intended to do so, but that does not matter. From the officer’s perspective, Good was ignoring orders while speeding toward him from just feet away.
There will likely be civil litigation. Democrats have also called for criminal charges. The arguments on both sides of this controversy show, at most, that the issue is debatable. The officer could be viewed as wrong and still be found to have acted within the scope of his discretion in responding to a threat. Any state effort to charge the officer will be removed to federal court, where he will likely have immunity based on this evidence.
The public would be wise to ignore conclusions reached blindly by either side. In an “Age of Rage,” we live in the land of the blind, where the one-eyed man is king. The public must remain clear-eyed and calm as the investigation proceeds in Minneapolis.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the forthcoming “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
From the Minneapolis Fraternal Order of police.
“W]hile Federal law enforcement has been doing their job in Minnesota, political and community leaders have condemned and vilified them. The hateful and anti-law enforcement rhetoric by Mayor Frey and other politicians have made their jobs and those of local and state law enforcement more difficult and dangerous. The job of law enforcement is difficult and dangerous enough without the agitation by leaders in our state and communities.”
The leftist politicians are happy to get the Somali scandal off the front page. They couldn’t give a rats behind about this woman. All over X black people are saying that she pulled a stupid move.
They are saying that if she really cared about her kids she would have thought about them before she did what she did. True civil disobedience accepts the consequences of your actions not running over someone in an attempt to get away. Martin Luther King was a hero but this woman was just a boisterous coward who really only cared about herself.
Who is morally responsible for the killing? That is an easy question to answer: the people who encouraged thousands of people to cross our Southern border without official approval.
Ok, this is what I think happened. One officer was at the door of the car pulling on the handle trying open the door to arrest them for blocking traffic and whatever else might be applicable. The second officer was standing in front of the car with his pistol drawn. Meanwhile, her partner screaming her to drive! drive! in an effort to flee and avoid arrest. So, she floored the accelerator in a panic with the car lurching toward the officer in front of the car. He raised his pistol and shot her in an effort to avoid being run over. She really did not intend to run over him, but the result was just the same. Admit it. If you had been the officer, you would have shot her as well.
The person who was responsible for what happened was her partner. She was the one who attempted to get Good to flee to avoid arrest. If she had kept her mouth shut, I bet she would still be alive today.
I don’t think he drew his pistol until she lurched towards him.
Shipwrecked Crew (William Shipley) has a detailed analysis of the video and the law that is worth reading on Red State.
While the good professor correctly advises “to ignore conclusions reached blindly by either side,” -the “sides” are not separated by different but reasonable conclusions drawn from video image interpretations, -they appear instead to be separated/divided by political preference.
Notwithstanding, this entire incident recalls a similarly case last year in which a Columbus OH officer was acquitted. (Halfway down in the media write-up, there is a link to the actual police camera video (paragraph starts with, “Jurors were shown the body cam video..”) Watch the video.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-acquitted-death-takiya-young-pregnant-black-mother-accused-sho-rcna245149
In the Ohio case, the officer intentionally positioned himself directly in front of the vehicle; whereas in the Minneapolis case, the officer was standing stationary away from and slightly off to the side of the vehicle, which then turned toward him. In both cases, the wrongs committed by the vehicle drivers were likely misdemeanors: one for shoplifting “booze,” the other for disregarding orders to exit the vehicle.
Coming full circle from my first sentence above, it appears to me that in today’s environment of “rage,” jurors may be more likely to decide a case by considering their political feelings than by considering “all angles” of the actual incident.
(yes, the shooting officer does appear to be passing around the front of Good’s car as she is putting it in reverse….)
You don’t taunt and egg-on the person with a gun is their hand.
When someone (anyone) is pointing a Gun at you, and you are unarmed, common sense dictates you stand down.
Becca Good escalated the circumstances by taunting and egging-on the officers, she was cognoscente of what she was doing, in addition when she boarded the Vehicle she commanded her wife to move/get out of there. The Wife obeyed and got killed for it. Becca Good will live with the consequences of her actions of that day, and someday Renee Good’s Children are going to call her out on that.
Lesson Learned: You Don’t Taunt and Egg-on the person with a gun is their hand, and You Don’t Take a Knife (SUV) to a Gun Fight.
MY favorite shooting is The Good The Bad and the Ugly ending. 21 million views.
Some trivia. This was filmed in Spain. The cemetery was an elaborate set, designed by Carlo Simi and built specifically for the film in 1966 by several hundred soldiers from the Spanish Army. It featured over 5,000 graves arranged in a circular design.
Professor,
I note your repeated condemnation of Mayor Frey and his rush to conclude that agent Ross was a “murderer.” But why not mention what prompted Frey’s comments? They were in direct response to Noem’s immediate declaration that Good was a “domestic terrorist” before she knew any real details of the incident or Trump’s Truth Social post that Ross was “run over” and injured to the extent he required hospitalization – which was clearly a lie. Yet again, you bemoan the “Age of Rage” but then throw another log on the fire of anger by not telling the whole story – and then, honestly, you warm your hands by the fire in plugging your book of the same title. I could ask why you insist on gas-lighting your readers, but the answer is obvious. Because your readers wouldn’t tolerate you being objective, and you wouldn’t have a book to shill.
Armchair Professor Anonymous: at best your points (like Frey’s) are extremely slanted; at worst, they join in Frey’s ill-mannered rhetorical firebombing that coerces people to act insanely—no “Public Servant” should speak in such foul manner as Frey, not for any reason. The job of a public servant is to uphold law and model civility.
Here are some things to consider, IF you are capable of reasoning:
* You bemoan,”Noem’s immediate declaration that Good was a “domestic terrorist” before she knew any real details of the incident…”
As a government official, Noem knew more at the beginning of the incident than you do, days later. She used a term you don’t like because it reveals the organized LARPing going on and its propensity to force escalation insurrection and harm. Your comrades WANT this kind of event and press, and for deeper and worse reasons than the protection of unchecked immigration.
* “Trump’s Truth Social post that Ross was “run over” and injured to the extent he required hospitalization – which was clearly a lie.”
The exaggerations in-point and outright lying (also from your ideological comrades) are going on, endlessly, in the current culture. In other words, there’s, a strong psychosis going on, and your job as a civilized neighbor is to help tamp it down, diffuse it, not praise loose cannons like Frey, in the further agitation of “rage” and violent stupidity.
In service of morality and real justice, why don’t you take Truley’s analyses as valid counterpoints, not as “gas lighting,” and learn how to object without the use of verbal violence, as well as encouraging the physical instigation of violence. That would go a long way to healing these United States, in addition to curbing the shock-mistakes of shooting people in the chaos of a violent moment—you all encourage this, daily. Stop it.
This comment is on target. It is entirely appropriate to criticize the comments of the Mayor and others who jumped to conclusions about what happened. But far worse is the fact that senior officials of the federal government also jumped to conclusions, thereby undermining the credibility of any investigation undertaken by their subordinates. The President, the Vice President and Secretary Noem have done far more to undermine the rule of law than the loonies who immediately condemned the ICE agent as a murderer.
What I find really rich about Frey demanding the federal government cooperate with him on his politically hinged investigation is that the state government refuses to work with the federal government to turn over criminal illegal aliens. In other words, we won’t work with you to enforce the law, but we demand that you work with us to enforce the law. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Performative rage. Gets votes!
And sells copies of Turley’s book.
We have plenty of facts. It was murder.
The only facts that have is that you are in fact an idiot.
Think you meant village idiot.
Let me ask you this: Someone pulls a gun, shoots at you, and it just grazes you; if you then return fire and kill them, is that murder?
Because that is what happened here. She gunned the engine of an SUV at someone. Due to the ice on the ground, it didn’t accelerate as fast as it could have, so it only winged that person. If that ice hadn’t been on the ground and the SUV had full traction, that person would have been sent flying.
Your analogy is flawed. In this case, Good fired the shot, grazed the officer and then kept shooting as she did not stop the vehicle when it struck the officer.
Clearly hit and run with reckless disregard for human life.
Who is we? You /they/them and your schizophrenic comrades in arms?
umm no it wasnt retard
The Left’s brainwashed idiot footsoldiers are not done yet. It will get worse before it gets better. Those buying these astroturf protests need to be stopped before their idiocy turns our streets truly bloody.
Part of my vote for Trump was mass deportations. He needs to up the rate 10x.
Make employers of illegals hurt
Ban remittances by illegals
E-verify for employment
Zero benefits for illegals
Zero $ for states obstructing ICE
Arrest the idiots obstructing LEOs
ID illegals through tax evasion
Trace and disrupt those paying protestors
It was very cruel to tell all those aliens that it was OK to come here illegally. It is cruel to American Citizens to allow them to stay.
Yes, there will be some economic dislocations caused by deporting 30-40 million illegal aliens but like a viral fever we will get past it.
Trades Jobs jobs jobs …
The only fact that matters is that she stepped on the accelerator instead of complying with the LEO’s orders to get out of the vehicle.
Agreed on the accelerator.
The lack of self-awareness of these Leftists is incredible. Their tantrums prevent them from even considering how stupid it is to harass and impede law enforcement.
Rounding up and deporting illegal aliens is lawful and is not a cause for revolution, yet they behave as if they are protecting the nation.
Hit and run
Can Mayor Frey tell us what he would have recommended the officer should have done if the car was accelerating toward him and the officer thought he would have been unable to evade it? Does the Mayor think the officer should have just stood there and taken the hit?
Now include the front tire gaining speed after it initially slipt on ice and you have more force.
This tactic of getting in front of a vehicle to justify shooting someone goes as far back at 2014.
“WASHINGTON — Border Patrol agents have deliberately stepped in the path of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers and have fired in frustration at people throwing rocks from the Mexican side of the border, according to an independent review of 67 cases that resulted in 19 deaths.”
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-killings-20140227-story.html#:~:text=An%20independent%20report%20criticizes%20Border,report%20from%20coming%20to%20light.
These kinds of tactics have been used to poorly justify the use of deadly force. When officers had plenty of opportunity to avoid the danger and threat of life. Many chose to shoot out of frustration and that is more likely why Ross chose to shoot Good rather than do the reasonable thing and stay away from the front of the vehicle which is what he is supposed to do.
All Good had to do was put the car in park and exit the vehicle as instructed by the LEO. She is to blame, no one else.
Good had no reason to exit the vehicle. It was not a traffic stop it was not an arrest. She was not told she was under arrest and she was not committing any traffic violation.
Two cars were able to get past her without any trouble and she was waving the ICE truck to get past her. Instead they chose to stop and confront her. All they had to to do is drive past her and continue on their merry way.
If this is so widely known then please explain why so many protesters put themselves in a situation where they are likely be shot. Are these protesters really that stupid?
Yes, yes they are…
2014? So you mean Obama planned Good’s death? No two ways about it. Premeditated.
“This tactic of getting in front of a vehicle to justify shooting someone goes as far back at 2014. ”
But that is not what happened in this case. The officer’s cell phone recording show him in the process of making a full 360 of the car in order to collect evidence. He had reached the front of the car and was continuing to circle around when the woman backed up, turn the wheels towards him, then gunned the engine. The officer didn’t jump in front of the car or anything like that at all.
You can claim all sorts of things that didn’t happen here, so it is irrelevant.
(Also, btw, a thrown rock is a deadly weapon. Just this past weekend, a guy throwing a rock fractured a young girl’s skull: https://abc7ny.com/post/teaneck-rock-thrown-bus-police-seek-suspect-8-year-old-girl-injured-nj/18378048/ )
It doesn’t matter if he was taking video of the car a full 360. He still was not supposed to get in front of it. If he did what you claim he did he already had her license plate number. He had everything he needed to get a warrant and arrest her later.
She turned away from him and bumped him when he didn’t get out of the way fast enough. He was already going to pull his gun on her when he witched hands when he was holding his cell phone.
BTW throwing rocks is not a deadly threat when you can get away from it. Plus shooting someone 8 times in the back through a fence is justified?
It doesn’t matter if he was taking video of the car a full 360. He still was not supposed to get in front of it.
While you want to lie in order to ignore all the existing case law (despite presenting yourself as a Constitutional expert almost daily)… where is your opinion codified in either state or federal law? Or case law, perhaps?
Where do you find his legal duty to avoid being in front of her vehicle? Karl Marx’s version of American law?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm”
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this: (1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and (2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also, (3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
354 days left in 2026 for daily cringe-worthy personal failure from X.
Throwing a rock into a moving vehicle is the same as shooting into an occupied vehicle. Its a physics momentum thing that I am sure yo would not be able to understand.
X says: “This tactic of getting in front of a vehicle to justify shooting someone goes as far back at 2014..”
Yup, as in “I so desperately want to shoot this person that I am going to stand directly in front of their vehicle in hopes that when they stomp on the gas, I can shoot them while not getting run over”!!!!
Straight out of Saul Alinsky’s 1960 communist operations manual.
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm”
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site.
This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
354 days left in 2026 for daily cringe-worthy personal failure from X.
Turley is correct to ignore the speed of the vehicle when it hit the parked car
In fact the absolute speed at any moment is irrelevant
It is the acceleration that matters
F = ma
Force = mass * acceleration
A 5000lb vehicle traveling 2 mph
Can kill or seriously injure you
If it is accelerating
While the same speed will have a fraction of the force if it is braking
Good was accelerating rapidly from a dead stop
With respect to mayor frey
Refrigerator doors have a mass of 10-20lbs
They are not 5000lb SUVs
Again
F = ma
2 mph is velocity, its not the acceleration. You use v squared on 2g. A=ft/s squared.
Good one
“ A 5000lb vehicle traveling 2 mph
Can kill or seriously injure you”
If you’re between the vehicle and a solid surface like a wall or another vehicle. Ross was nowhere in danger of being hurt by being bumped by a care barely moving 2mph.
Good was on an icy road and any rate of acceleration would have been attenuated by the poor traction on the icy road. Your attempt to show the danger Ross faced is laughable. He walked away unscathed. Remember he’s wearing body armor and tactical gear. The most he could have gotten from that encounter was a bruised ego.
Getting out the way to shoot into the open window two more times was not justified in any way. Those shots were made in anger. Not self defense.
X says: Getting out the way to shoot into the open window two more times was not justified in any way. Those shots were made in anger. Not self defense.
SCOTUS decisions swiftly deal with pathological liars who attempt to flaunt their Internet Law degrees: PLUMHOFF v. RICKART (2014)
See also:
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm”
Why don’t you have works by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this: (1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and (2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also, (3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
354 days left in 2026 for daily cringe-worthy personal failure from X.