MN -- woman shot in face and killed by ICE, Minneapolis, 7 Jan 2026

[IzzyBlanche]

Anyway, still waiting for the video clip that shows Renee hitting Ross with her car.

I am too.

 

[Rita7]

Anyone can protest from a distance. If she had been a block or even half a block away, not blocking the street with her car this wouldn't have happened. That's what I mean by "in the middle".

Everyone has a right to protest. No one has a right to impede or obstruct law enforcement operations.

Exactly

 

[SouthAussie]

Maybe this is what ICE were doing on that street, at the time. As well as being stuck in a snowbank.


"At the same time and on the same street as Good was shot dead, Callaghan had noticed ICE agents harassing a Hispanic woman.

"I said to them, 'Arrest me, take me, I'm not afraid of you' … They pointed a gun at me and before I knew it they had me in handcuffs," he said.

"They said, 'Are you afraid yet?' And I said, 'No'. And then they said, 'Well, you're white. You wouldn't be any fun anyway.'"

The comment left him aghast.
"I couldn't believe it. I could not believe my ears or my eyes what I was witnessing firsthand happening in this country," he said."

Why Minneapolis was the place where ICE launched its largest operation yet

Minneapolis had been the target of a massive immigration enforcement operation in the weeks leading up to Renee Nicole Good's death. Now, the shooting has opened old wounds.

www.abc.net.au

 

[branmuffin]

One salient piece of information that I didn't really twig onto until it was pointed out to me was this: when ICE agent JC walked around the vehicle the first time he had his phone in his right hand. He had it in his right hand when Renee said 'I'm not mad at you'. He still had it in his right hand at the back of Renee's vehicle while looking at the license plate. He had it in his right hand right up until Becca Good started taunting him about getting some lunch. Then he changed his phone to his left hand to free up his right hand where his weapon is. Why did he do that? Was he anticipating some aggression toward him by Becca Good or was he just getting pissed off over Becca's taunting? Because it's interesting to me that he was already preparing to use his weapon without even knowing what Renee Good was doing within those next few seconds. It's even more interesting to me that the only time Jonathon Cross spoke during those 47 seconds was when he said F*****g B***h and holstered his weapon. The finality of both those actions; the profanity and the holstering of the weapon says a lot to me.

I'm a Canadian and I worked for quite a while with the OPP. We have zoned out druggies and drunks and violent people too and they get arrested just like they do in the US. But what we don't have except on very rare occasions is cops killing people they are attempting to arrest.

Now I know that we don't worry about everyone and sundry carrying weapons because our gun laws are pretty stringent. I'm also not saying that we don't have cops that push the envelope when working in certain scenarios but it's rare for cops to kill arrestees. Even the guy who killed numerous people driving a white van down Yonge St, the main artery of downtown Toronto, was arrested by a Toronto cop without using his weapon. Even after the killer pretended to draw a weapon from his jacket obviously hoping for death by cop. I know that wouldn't have happened in the US. And I think most Americans know that too.

I remember once walking down Bay St, one over from Yonge St, when a very agitated man who obviously was in mental distress was brandishing a weapon at the corner of a very busy intersection, yelling and screaming and scaring the hell out of pedestrians and those in a streetcar stuck at a red light. The was a Toronto cop on the scene. After efforts to get the man to disarm he shot and killed the guy. When he went over to the man and found out the weapon he was carrying was a toy gun he sat down on the curb and cried like a baby. The downtown division of the TPS is right at the corner of Dundas and Bay St. There's probably a hundred cops in that building, too.

 

[SouthAussie]

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told USA TODAY .... "I think they ultimately will choose to prosecute," ... "Attorney General Ellison's office has been pretty aggressive in these types of cases, dating back to George Floyd,"

One challenge to Minnesota officials bringing charges is that they would likely have to prosecute the case outside of their home turf.

In addition, state prosecutors would likely have to meet special legal standards to get the case to trial, because they would be prosecuting a federal agent.

Another potential challenge is courts disagreeing on the exact contours of this type of immunity for federal officers, leaving the law in this area somewhat unsettled

Even if state officials do decide charges are warranted, they are unlikely to bring a first-degree murder charge, according to Rahmani.

He said state officials might consider a form of manslaughter or a lesser murder charge, which come with maximum penalties ranging from 10 to 40 years in prison.

Why state charges for Minneapolis ICE shooting are possible but tricky

Minnesota charges against an ICE agent who shot and killed an SUV driver are possible, but securing a trial and conviction would be more challenging.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Mo Thuairim]

What it comes down to for me (besides the fact that all the ICE officers had plenty of room on the road to just drive past Renee’s car and had zero need to stop and engage with her at all) is 2 things:

1. Him moving his cell phone to his non dominant hand as he’s still walking around her vehicle. Why would he do this unless he was considering and planning to have his right hand available to draw his weapon and shoot. This sets up premeditation for me.

2. The self defense thing pretty much falls apart when he takes shots 2 and 3 from the complete side of her vehicle, into her open drivers side car window. He was standing next to her car at that point so there was zero danger to him at that point. Firing more shots into her car just puts him, his colleagues and every citizen on that street in more danger. As a trained agent with over 10 years of experience, he had to know that shooting into a car does not make it stop.

All MOO.

Excellent points

 

[nhmemorymaker]

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told USA TODAY .... "I think they ultimately will choose to prosecute," ... "Attorney General Ellison's office has been pretty aggressive in these types of cases, dating back to George Floyd,"

One challenge to Minnesota officials bringing charges is that they would likely have to prosecute the case outside of their home turf.

In addition, state prosecutors would likely have to meet special legal standards to get the case to trial, because they would be prosecuting a federal agent.

Another potential challenge is courts disagreeing on the exact contours of this type of immunity for federal officers, leaving the law in this area somewhat unsettled

Even if state officials do decide charges are warranted, they are unlikely to bring a first-degree murder charge, according to Rahmani.

He said state officials might consider a form of manslaughter or a lesser murder charge, which come with maximum penalties ranging from 10 to 40 years in prison.

Why state charges for Minneapolis ICE shooting are possible but tricky

Minnesota charges against an ICE agent who shot and killed an SUV driver are possible, but securing a trial and conviction would be more challenging.

www.usatoday.com

I am missing our emojis....
so just have to say how angry this makes me
But as always @SouthAussie thanks for posting vital information.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

.

Good question about the legality or illlegality of Ross shooting Good.

It seems that there was disorganization on both sides, tbh, but this article, that I have already linked, seems to explain things better.

https://www.startribune.com/what-ice-agents-can-and-cant-do-and-what-legal-rights-the-public-has-during-encounters/601560316

On the one hand, it is not ICE job to deal with traffic violation of the US citizens. We have police; if it is far, maybe register the license plate and forward it to the police. ICE can approach the car if they have reasons to believe that the person is in the country illegally.

In this case, there was no evidence that Good was in the country illegally. Moreover, her partner explained that she herself was an ex- US military. But what I also don’t see is Ross or any of ICE agents introducing themselves as such. They are not mandated to show the documents but by law, they have to introduce themselves as ICE agents before they interact with civilians, legal or illegal.

Now, there are also legal representatives of COPAL, ICE watch, who have to introduce themselves. I don’t see it done here either.

With a moving car, we all have to be careful. So if three ICE agents are giving a civilian driving a car with toys, not guns (and they are super close! They can see that these are toys) conflicting instructions while standing very close to the car, they act unsafely.

Now, legal COPAL members have the right to film ICE. I don’t think that blocking the road is their job. They can register ICE’s work, they can’t interfere with it. Plus, it is a one-way road used by other citizens. JMO, it was a poorly thought over decision.

Good’s partner. For an ex-military whom we have to thank for her service, btw, she is not professional. It is her personal business what she thinks of Ross’s size. If she is the legal representative of COPAL, this is all she needs to say.

Ross shoots. I have already written that “inertia - the natural tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion” - will prevent a heavy car from stopping, even if you kill the driver. You need to apply external force (in this case, collision with the white car) to stop
Good’s car. What if there were no car on its way? Then Good’s car would stop sooner or later due to friction forces, but on a snowy and icy road it might take some time. Ross could have attempted to stop the car by shooting both front tires or the radiator. His first shot through the front window indicates that he has zero understanding of mechanics. It also raises a question: you served in Iraq in machine gun team. You have to know Newtonian laws, what were you thinking you were doing?

So the first shot can’t be explained. At all. The other two obviously don’t make any more sense because he sees that the car continues to drive. It is an overkill.

Now, using the “b….” word on camera effectively deprives the situation of any professionalism and reveals Ross for what he is. He acts not as an agent representing a federal organization, but an insecure, impulsive, petty man. That effectively shifts the focus from “confronting an agent” to road rage, or job violence, or hate crime, or misogyny.

So IMHO, for an ICE agent to shoot a civilian who, while naive and inexperienced, IMHO did not present danger on the road, was illegal and totally overstepping the agent’s boundaries. Even if Ross thought that Good’s car presented a danger to him, his choice of action did not minimize the danger, rather, the opposite. He will have a hard time explaining his goal to any judge because IMHO he acted senselessly.

Ross got federal immunity, we heard. Now the ball is in the corner of Minnesota court.

Was Good part of COPAL? I've not seen that anywhere.

 

[crussell821]

I am too.

Has it been posted yet, or are we still waiting?

 

[Mo Thuairim]

Has it been posted yet, or are we still waiting?

Still we wait.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

Also in a trial situation, a jury or judge don't decide if an act of self defence is fair in their minds. They need to decide if they think if in the accused's mind, they thought they were acting in self defence.

SBM

IANAL but this is untrue. The "reasonable man" standard is used to judge if the person acted in self defense. Even if you truly believe you are in danger, if an average person wouldn't have reasonably come to that same conclusion then it's not self defense.

I don't think we need to go very far to determine if it was reasonable for the agent to feel threatened, since not one other agent out of the many on the scene pulled a weapon. No other agent felt threatened.

People may respond that he was the only agent in front of her car, so he was the only one who felt threatened.... He placed himself in front of the car. He put himself in a position that was inherently dangerous. What if the agent at her car door had grabbed her and her foot slipped off the brake? What if she sneezed and her foot slipped? Would a reasonable person have walked in front of the car? Well, that's a solid "no" because LE is trained not to do that (as are most 4 year olds).

Lets say he felt threatened. Would a reasonable person have decided that shooting was an appropriate response? Shooting the driver is only a reasonable action if you are in a different dimension where the laws of physics don't apply. Shooting the driver makes the car an uncontrolled 2 ton projectile, which is why law enforcement is trained not to do this and it's against LE policy.

How can the shooting meet the "reasonable man" standard when shooting the driver violates his training and ice policy? "But it was a split second decision..." Doesn't matter, he ignored his training and policy which imo automatically makes it unreasonable.

Moo

 

[raja]

This is where it get slippery for me. Some are saying Ross made a split second decision because he thought his life was endangered by her vehicle and he fired in self defense. From what I’ve seen up to this point, I think the situation could have ended without Good being shot. At the same time, I can understand why he would feel like his life was endangered. It’s terrifying to see a scene turn into complete chaos and death within a very short amount of time.

I know I’m in the minority in seeing both sides. That’s where I usually end up getting rolled when I get involved in these types of discussions. Plus I’m terrible at explaining my thoughts in writing.

I completely understand what you’re saying here and I too try to look at both sides. This situation is just horrible. A young mother lost her life, so very tragic. Her conscience actions did not deserve for her to be killed. Everything happened so quickly though. I truly hope that this terrible case can be judged fairly with out political bias.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

They said, 'Are you afraid yet?' And I said, 'No'. And then they said, 'Well, you're white. You wouldn't be any fun anyway.'"

SBM

This should appall everyone. Is that why the agents stopped and went back to Good, simply to terrorize her? When comparisons are made to notorious agencies of the past, this is why. There was no reason for the agents to stop their car and engage bystanders.

 

[Ruminations]

Good question about the legality or illlegality of Ross shooting Good.

It seems that there was disorganization on both sides, tbh, but this article, that I have already linked, seems to explain things better.

https://www.startribune.com/what-ice-agents-can-and-cant-do-and-what-legal-rights-the-public-has-during-encounters/601560316

On the one hand, it is not ICE job to deal with traffic violation of the US citizens. We have police; if it is far, maybe register the license plate and forward it to the police. ICE can approach the car if they have reasons to believe that the person is in the country illegally.

In this case, there was no evidence that Good was in the country illegally. Moreover, her partner explained that she herself was an ex- US military. But what I also don’t see is Ross or any of ICE agents introducing themselves as such. They are not mandated to show the documents but by law, they have to introduce themselves as ICE agents before they interact with civilians, legal or illegal.

Now, there are also legal representatives of COPAL, ICE watch, who have to introduce themselves. I don’t see it done here either.

With a moving car, we all have to be careful. So if three ICE agents are giving a civilian driving a car with toys, not guns (and they are super close! They can see that these are toys) conflicting instructions while standing very close to the car, they act unsafely.

Now, legal COPAL members have the right to film ICE. I don’t think that blocking the road is their job. They can register ICE’s work, they can’t interfere with it. Plus, it is a one-way road used by other citizens. JMO, it was a poorly thought over decision.

Good’s partner. For an ex-military whom we have to thank for her service, btw, she is not professional. It is her personal business what she thinks of Ross’s size. If she is the legal representative of COPAL, this is all she needs to say.

Ross shoots. I have already written that “inertia - the natural tendency of an object to resist changes in its state of motion” - will prevent a heavy car from stopping, even if you kill the driver. You need to apply external force (in this case, collision with the white car) to stop
Good’s car. What if there were no car on its way? Then Good’s car would stop sooner or later due to friction forces, but on a snowy and icy road it might take some time. Ross could have attempted to stop the car by shooting both front tires or the radiator. His first shot through the front window indicates that he has zero understanding of mechanics. It also raises a question: you served in Iraq in machine gun team. You have to know Newtonian laws, what were you thinking you were doing?

So the first shot can’t be explained. At all. The other two obviously don’t make any more sense because he sees that the car continues to drive. It is an overkill.

Now, using the “b….” word on camera effectively deprives the situation of any professionalism and reveals Ross for what he is. He acts not as an agent representing a federal organization, but an insecure, impulsive, petty man. That effectively shifts the focus from “confronting an agent” to road rage, or job violence, or hate crime, or misogyny.

So IMHO, for an ICE agent to shoot a civilian who, while naive and inexperienced, IMHO did not present danger on the road, was illegal and totally overstepping the agent’s boundaries. Even if Ross thought that Good’s car presented a danger to him, his choice of action did not minimize the danger, rather, the opposite. He will have a hard time explaining his goal to any judge because IMHO he acted senselessly.

Ross got federal immunity, we heard. Now the ball is in the corner of Minnesota court.

Thank you. Beautiful. A voice of common sense.

 

[Ruminations]

I don’t believe he was actually hit and nothing in that video is concrete evidence either way. This is my opinion.

But even if we walk it through hypothetically and say there was some contact, it still doesn’t change the core issue. If he was hit hard enough to be in danger, i would expect to see him knocked down, drop his phone or weapon, or be momentarily incapacitated. None of that happened.

He stayed upright, in control, and was able to aim and fire three shots. That tells me that any contact, if it occurred at all, was minor and not an imminent threat. A vehicle being “weaponized” doesn’t look like that.

So even in the most generous interpretation to the agent, the escalation to lethal force still doesn’t make sense. The focus keeps getting stuck on a split second of possible contact instead of the choices the agent made that lead to this.. stopping, engaging, and escalating when he could have just kept moving.


All MOO

Right.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

.

I don’t believe he was actually hit and nothing in that video is concrete evidence either way. This is my opinion.

But even if we walk it through hypothetically and say there was some contact, it still doesn’t change the core issue. If he was hit hard enough to be in danger, i would expect to see him knocked down, drop his phone or weapon, or be momentarily incapacitated. None of that happened.

He stayed upright, in control, and was able to aim and fire three shots. That tells me that any contact, if it occurred at all, was minor and not an imminent threat. A vehicle being “weaponized” doesn’t look like that.

So even in the most generous interpretation to the agent, the escalation to lethal force still doesn’t make sense. The focus keeps getting stuck on a split second of possible contact instead of the choices the agent made that lead to this.. stopping, engaging, and escalating when he could have just kept moving.


All MOO

Well stated. I would only add that his shooting Good did nothing to ensure his safety or the safety of others. Quite the opposite as the vehicle does not stop.

 

[DonAntonio]

IMHO JR was the terrorist. Let me explain why. He was already loaded with frustration and anger because what happened to him earlier that year. His mind only respondend with one thougt and that was this won’t happen with me again. He was a walking time bomb. It was just a matter of time that he would fatally killed someone. Unluckily it was RNG. It could have been anyone else. After the shooting he showed no remorse or regret so please US government take this man from the streets and put him in jail.

 

[rogue ant]

I do not see him.being hit here. Also, you are aware the car moved rapidly forward AFTER he fired the first shot?

Correct. If he was hit by a moving SUV, why is he still on his feet ? He never even faltered.

 

[Ruminations]

Thank you. Yes he was struck by the vehicle.

No, he wasn't. But I'm beginning to understand why some people want to believe that so hard.


Either imagine Renee did something wrong, or recognize the USA has become a place where ICE's real mission is to just keep ordinary citizens afraid of exercising their basic rights.


I get why people look at a clear video of this shooting and want to blame the victim. It's because they can't not allow themselves to accept that in the USA, they could be next.

MOO



MOO

 

[Ruminations]

SBM

This should appall everyone. Is that why the agents stopped and went back to Good, simply to terrorize her? When comparisons are made to notorious agencies of the past, this is why. There was no reason for the agents to stop their car and engage bystanders.

It appears quite personal. Good even saw that-she tried to defuse him

MOO