Furious Democrats cry ‘murder’ after ICE agent kills mom-of-three – but the law tells a very different story

An ICE agent who shot dead a mother-of-three in Minneapolis is unlikely to face criminal charges, legal experts say, despite nationwide fury.

Renee Nicole Good, 37, was killed on Wednesday while driving an SUV that was blocking a residential street during protests against an ICE operation.

The agent has been identified by local media as Jonathan Ross, an experienced officer who was previously dragged 100 yards by a car during an arrest attempt in June, suffering serious injuries to his arm that required 20 stitches.

The shooting has sparked furious political condemnation, including Democratic lawmakers branding it ‘murder,’ but legal experts say the question of criminal liability turns on narrow technicalities under deadly force law – not public outrage.

Videos show agents approaching Good’s stationary vehicle, asking her to exit, and one tugs at the door handle as she starts to reverse.

Ross stands in front of the car and draws his weapon, pointing it at Good as she starts moving forward. She strikes him with the car as he opens fire. Good’s Honda Pilot crashed nearby and she was declared dead at the scene.

Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at conservative nonprofit Advancing American Freedom, told the Daily Mail that under the law, the use of deadly force is justified when an officer can reasonably perceive a threat of serious bodily harm or death.

‘You have an officer who is trying to conduct a lawful detention of a driver who is blocking the road, trying to impede law enforcement as they’re going down that road. That driver is not being compliant with these lawful commands, and, in fact, seems to be trying to escape that situation,’ Swearer explained.

‘She puts the car in reverse, as another officer is trying to open the door, and then begins moving the car – which is a deadly weapon, a 3,000 or 4,000 pound car that can accelerate very quickly and be very deadly even at short distance – towards the officer in front of the car.’

There has been much speculation online over the direction of the wheels as Good appears to be turning down the road away from the officers.

Others have questioned why Ross was standing in front of the car.

Swearer explained that both points are irrelevant to the law.

‘He explicitly does not have a duty to retreat in the way that a civilian would under these circumstances,’ she told the Mail.

‘It doesn’t matter whether that driver subjectively was not trying to hit the officer,’ Swearer added. ‘It matters what the officer can reasonably perceive. He can’t read her mind. He just knows that you have someone who’s ignoring lawful commands, who is moving the car toward him. That is deadly force.’

She compared it to a cop being confronted by a suspect who is reaching for a gun in his waistband while being asked to keep his hands up.

‘They don’t have to wait until they’re actually being shot or actually being run over to respond,’ she said.

Swearer added that the officer does not have the benefit of hindsight or six different camera angles to assess the danger; the law only considers whether he ‘perceived that he was facing a serious threat of violence for himself.’

Other legal analysts state that while federal charges are unlikely, Minnesota prosecutors are not legally barred from pursuing the case.

Ian Millhiser, a legal correspondent for Vox, focused not on whether the shooting was morally justified but on jurisdictional questions.

He wrote that ‘there’s virtually no chance that President Donald Trump’s Justice Department will bring federal charges’ but added that local officials such as Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey are furious.

‘If further investigations reveal that the shooting was not legally justified, state prosecutors could potentially charge the officer responsible with a homicide crime,’ Millhiser said.

He wrote that although federal officers enjoy broad protections, the Supreme Court recently narrowed immunity for federal officers to actions deemed ‘necessary and proper’ within the scope of their duties.

But he warned that a state prosecution would face steep legal and political challenges because federal law says criminal charges against ‘any officer of the United States or agency thereof’ may be removed from the state court and heard by a federal judge.

‘This statute does not prevent state prosecutors from bringing charges or from prosecuting a case,’ Millhiser explains, but it does ensure ‘this case would be decided by federal courts that are increasingly dominated by conservative Republicans.’

Federal cases out of Minnesota appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where 10 of the 11 active judges were appointed by Republicans.

Any decision by the Eighth Court could subsequently be appealed to the Supreme Court, where Republicans control six of the nine seats.

Minnesota civil rights attorney Paul Applebaum said it was unclear who, if anyone, would prosecute the officer.

‘The possibility of the officer being prosecuted by Pam Bondi are slim to none,’ ‍Applebaum said of the attorney general.

He said if state officials tried to charge the officer, it would set up a constitutional ⁠conflict between the state and the federal government.

Courts have increasingly narrowed the ability to sue federal officers for damages for civil rights violations to the point it was ‘almost an empty exercise,’ Applebaum said.

The Trump administration says Good was a ‘professional agitator’ who had been stalking federal agents.

State and local officials demanded ICE leave Minnesota after Good’s death.

But DHS boss Kristi Noem has said agents are not going anywhere.

The FBI is investigating the shooting.