The Renee Good Shooting Demands Charges, Not Secrecy [OPINION}

By Joshua Thoreson, Minnesota Reformer

May 18, 2026

Renee Good’s killing demands a full, transparent and independent investigation, with the underlying evidence released to the public. But the facts already known support saying more than that: It looks like a case serious enough to warrant criminal charges and judicial scrutiny.

That conclusion does not require pretending every factual question has been resolved. It requires recognizing that the public record we do have has already undermined the federal government’s central narrative.

Reuters’ reconstruction of the Jan. 7 shooting found that ICE agent Jonathan Ross fired three shots in less than a second as Good’s SUV moved through a one-way residential street in Minneapolis. According to Reuters, the first shot went through the windshield, while the second and third came through the driver’s side as the vehicle continued beyond Ross’s frontal position.

Reuters also reported that Ross remained upright as he fired. Separate reporting indicates the video was recorded on Ross’s cellphone. In ordinary terms, the evidence appears to show Ross still on his feet, still holding his phone, and firing one-handed as Good’s SUV moved past him. That does not conclusively prove he felt no danger. It does, however, materially weaken the claim that he was trapped in an unavoidable life-or-death emergency with no option but immediate lethal force.

The scene is more troubling still because Ross’s gunfire did not occur in isolation. Reuters’ reconstruction says another agent was at or near the driver’s door trying to open it. That means Ross was not simply deciding whether to protect himself. Because he fired while another federal agent was physically at or near the driver’s side, he endangered not only Good but also fellow officers. If he was firing from a position in the vehicle’s path, he was doing so in a manner that created severe risk to other agents. If the SUV had already moved beyond his immediate position, then the danger to Ross had diminished while the danger created by his own gunfire remained acute. Either way, the scene does not fit an easy narrative of disciplined, necessary, deadly force.

The wound geometry only deepens the doubt. The family’s independent autopsy stated that Good suffered a wound to the left forearm, a wound through the right breast that did not strike major organs, and a fatal head wound entering near the left temple and exiting the right side of her head. Those wound locations do not conclusively establish the sequence of every bullet. But they do make the official self-defense narrative harder to sustain. If the fatal shot came from directly in front of the SUV, then Ross appears to have fired at extraordinarily close range into the driver’s compartment while another agent was at or near the door. If, as the reported shot sequence suggests, the later side-window shots caused the most serious injuries, then Ross was firing laterally as the SUV moved past him. On either reading, the known geometry raises serious doubt about whether all three rounds were justified.

These facts matter because the governing legal standard is not vague. Federal agents may approach a person on a public street and ask questions. But they may not — without reasonable suspicion or probable cause — convert that encounter into detention, physical restraint or deadly force. In ordinary language, that means the government cannot stop a person without an adequate legal basis. This case is therefore not just about whether federal agents complied with internal policy. It is about whether they violated constitutional rights. And if officers were violating her constitutional rights when they confronted and detained her, that would seriously undercut any claim that they were lawfully performing their duties. An unlawful stop cannot simply be converted into a lawful defense through escalation.

That point becomes especially important once one distinguishes between impeding traffic and impeding the lawful performance of federal duties. Good was publicly described as part of a neighborhood patrol effort monitoring ICE activity. Even if she was shouting at officers or contributing to a chaotic scene, that does not automatically create individualized probable cause that she was unlawfully obstructing a federal function. Yet federal officials quickly moved to inflammatory rhetoric, characterizing her conduct as “domestic terrorism.” If authorities had clear, individualized facts showing that Good was materially interfering with a specific lawful operation, one would expect those facts to have been laid out clearly and promptly. Instead, the public got a narrative before it got a record.

Nor has the federal response inspired confidence. Minnesota later sued the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security for access to evidence in the Good case and other shootings, alleging that federal authorities withheld crucial materials and obstructed state investigations. Notably, lawyers inside the Justice Department reportedly resigned because of the handling of this case. If federal officials were confident this shooting was justified, the natural response would have been cooperation, disclosure and a clean evidentiary record. Instead, Minnesota has had to fight for access. Transparency is not a courtesy here. It is the minimum condition of legitimacy.

Minnesotans should continue to demand the full record. But on the facts now known, prosecutors have ample reason to bring this case into court. The shot sequence, the wound geometry, the apparent one-handed firing while Ross remained upright and held his phone, the presence of another agent at or near the driver’s door, the uncertainty surrounding any constitutional basis for forcibly stopping Good, and the federal government’s resistance to transparency: They all point in the same direction. This is not a clean self-defense case. It is a case that belongs before a judge and jury.

Filing charges is not the same as declaring guilt. It is the mechanism by which disputed facts are tested, evidence is produced and legal justifications are examined in public.

The Minnesota Reformer is an independent, nonprofit news organization dedicated to keeping Minnesotans informed and unearthing stories other outlets can’t or won’t tell..