What Minneapolis ICE shooting reveals about law and accountability
Massoud Amin
For more than two decades, I have lived and worked in Minneapolis. During that time, I have seen communities withstand floods, protests and a pandemic. I have also seen how quickly tragedy can divide us. The killing of Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old Minnesota resident and mother of three, by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent on Jan. 7 has become one of those moments. In confronting it, we must adhere to the facts, understand the law and remember the humanity of everyone involved.
According to federal officials and multiple news reports, Good was fatally shot during a federal immigration operation in south Minneapolis. Video recorded by bystanders shows several ICE agents surrounding her sport utility vehicle. As she tried to leave the scene, one agent fired into the driver’s side window. The vehicle rolled into parked cars and came to a stop. The Department of Homeland Security described the agent’s actions as self-defense and characterized Good’s behavior as an act of domestic terrorism. Local officials disagreed. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said the video showed an officer recklessly using force that resulted in a death, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz criticized federal authorities for escalating an operation that he warned was likely to end badly.
Federal officials have argued that Good tried to run over the agent and that the shooting was justified. Local leaders — including Walz, Frey and Sen. Tina Smith — have said the footage does not support that claim and have called for federal agents to leave the state. These divergent narratives mirror national debates about immigration enforcement and have already prompted supporters and detractors to retreat into familiar partisan positions. Such reflexive alignments risk politicizing an inquiry that should be guided by evidence rather than ideology.
Behind the public dispute lies a body of law that limits when officers may use deadly force. The Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor (1989) requires that the reasonableness of force be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with hindsight. The Department of Homeland Security’s use of force policy, which applies to ICE agents, stipulates that deadly force may be used only when an officer has a reasonable belief that a subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
The policy further states that firing at the operator of a moving vehicle is prohibited unless deadly force is necessary — meaning that a fleeing car, by itself, is not a fatal threat unless its escape poses an imminent danger. These standards are echoed in the Department of Justice’s Justice Manual, which instructs federal officers not to use firearms merely to disable a moving vehicle. Law enforcement scholars note that many police departments adopted similar restrictions decades ago because shooting at vehicles endangers bystanders and increases the risk of a crash.
The policies also emphasize the totality of circumstances: the severity of the crime at issue, whether a subject is actively resisting and whether conditions are tense and rapidly evolving, all of which inform whether the use of force is reasonable. These rules were designed to balance public safety with the reality that officers sometimes face split-second decisions. They do not, however, absolve officers from accountability when force is misused.
Multiple agencies are reviewing the shooting. Because ICE is a federal agency, the FBI is leading the primary investigation. Legal experts say parallel reviews are needed: an administrative inquiry to determine whether the agent complied with policy, and a criminal investigation to assess whether his actions were lawful. Federal agents enjoy certain protections under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, but those protections are not absolute. States retain the authority to prosecute federal officers who act outside their lawful duties. The tension between federal control and state oversight underscores the need for transparency; public confidence in the outcome hinges on whether all relevant evidence is shared and whether the process is perceived as fair.
In the days after Good’s death, few public figures paused to ask basic questions. What does the available video actually show? Did the agent have a reasonable belief that he or others faced imminent danger? What alternative actions were possible? The rush to defend or condemn undermines the seriousness of the inquiry. Journalists have helped fill the gap. The Minnesota Star Tribune published a frame-by-frame analysis of the shooting, allowing readers to scrutinize the footage themselves. Such reporting reminds us that facts should anchor public debate.
At the same time, two wrongs do not make a right: Whatever Good’s decisions in that moment, unjustified lethal force should not be excused. Conversely, whatever an officer’s prior experiences, his actions must be assessed objectively under the law. Compassion requires us to acknowledge the loss of life and to support the family affected. Accountability requires us to evaluate the incident against established standards, not political passions or personal biases. This is not a matter of choosing sides; it is a matter of upholding the rule of law.
Minnesota’s strength lies in its capacity for decency and thoughtful engagement, even in times of grief. As we await the outcome of the investigations, we should commit to careful reading and listening, demand transparency and insist that any conclusions be based in evidence. Only by doing so can we honor both the life that was lost and the principles that bind our community together.
Massoud Amin is professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota. He is a longtime Minneapolis resident. The views expressed in this article are his own.