A detailed analysis of the Renee Good shooting and its political implications.
The Jan. 7 shooting death of Renee Good has become a political Rorschach test. A Quinnipiac poll released on Tuesday finds that a majority of American voters, 53%, believe ICE agent Jonathan Ross, who shot Good on a Minneapolis street last Wednesday, was not justified in doing so. Thirty-five percent believe the shooting was justified, while 12% have no opinion. But the poll results vary widely when the respondents’ political affiliations are examined. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans believe the shooting was justified, while 28% of independents and only four percent of Democrats hold the same opinion.
These poll results are unsurprising. As news of the shooting broke, political lines were quickly drawn, and conclusions were quickly reached, with both sides resorting to hyperbole that was carried unquestioningly by news outlets on both sides of the political divide. As in its Minneapolis antecedent, the George Floyd case, there is a danger that the investigation into Renee Good’s unfortunate death will be driven more by politics than by facts and the law.
I admit my general bias in favor of law enforcement. I’ve been a police officer for more than 40 years and writing for various conservative outlets for more than 25. Much of that writing has been devoted to defending police officers who, in my view, had been unfairly vilified in the media after controversial uses of force. But my defense of these officers has never been reflexive. I do my best to present arguments based on long experience and an understanding of the applicable law, and on occasion, I have been very critical of officers who I believed had transgressed (see here, here, and here, for example).
But in the matter of the Renee Good shooting, as I wrote here on Jan. 7 and again on Jan. 13, I have formed the opinion that the killing of Renee Good was, though profoundly unfortunate, within the law as it currently exists.
I am, of course, aware of the division of opinion on the matter, even among some prosecutors of my acquaintance, and I have read articles, listened to podcasts, and watched YouTube videos presented by people who are every bit as convinced Jonathan Ross is criminally culpable for killing Good as I am that he is not.
I was directed to one such video, presented by attorney Harry Litman, titled “5 FLASHPOINTS that Could CHANGE EVERYTHING in ICE Shooting CASE.” Litman has had a long and distinguished legal career, including serving as U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, so I was eager to hear his point of view on the case and was open to the possibility he could change my mind.
He didn’t.
Litman’s five “flashpoints” are as follows:
Addressing the five points in order:
I’m aware of no one who has asserted Good had committed a felony or presented a danger to the agents in the minutes leading up to the shooting. What she had done was commit the misdemeanor crime of impeding the agents in carrying out their duties.
