-3

ICE agent Jonathan Ross seems likely to face a Minnesota state prosecution (in either federal or state court) for his killing of Renée Good. For the purposes of this question, assume that such a prosecution proceeds.

The White House is claiming self-defense, but I'm having a hard time seeing this working. I appreciate that good, trained police officers can make mistakes in situations like these. But in this particular case, it's hard for me to say that the federal agents did enough things right or showed enough good intentions for a self-defense argument to work. Here are the specific potential issues I see with a self-defense defense:

  1. A bullet won't stop Good's potential weapon (the car) if (as alleged by the White House) it's immediately headed towards an agent. To the contrary, killing the driver makes the car go out of control. I don't see any legit purpose to firing the gun. The 2nd and 3rd shots (through the car's side window) look to me like felonies because the car had already passed all agents by that time, and was not headed towards any other pedestrians.

  2. Can you claim self-defense if the person you killed was not the one making the situation life-threatening? The car was not headed towards agent Ross. In the driver-side video, you can clearly see that Good is turning the wheels to get AWAY from the agents. (This is absolutely relevant, otherwise bad cops could just sit at the side of a curved road and gun down whoever they want.) In that same video you can also see the decent gap on the ground between the front weel and the agent's foot. Despite agent Ross dancing around like he's hit, he is obviously unscathed (As seen in that video, the car misses him. This is confirmed in New York Times analysis. Also Ross runs around doing errands immediately afterwards.)

  3. Can you claim self-defense in a life-threatening situation if YOU were the one to escalate the situation to life-threatening? Actions agents took to escalate: putting hands inside a running vehicle. Running towards vehicle and standing in front of it after asking it to move. Barking commands and startling the driver without giving her enough time to react. Creating and entering a life-threatening situation that they weren't trained to handle. In particular, agent Ross had a history of doing stupid things like trying to enter a moving vehicle.

  4. Actions agents didn't take to de-escalate. Is there not a responsibility to take any reasonable steps that may save a life? In this situation, it was obvious that Good was likely going to move the running car to comply with earlier orders. Had the agents simply stepped away (instead of one agent putting his hands in the car and Ross reaching for his gun) no perceived life-threatening situation would have been created.

  5. Agent Ross seems to have acted primarily out of anger. The White House's defense seems to imply that the agent thought that the car was headed right for him (when it was not). If this were the case, then after learning that the car was not headed towards him, wouldn't the agent be expected to show some level of dissatisfaction with his mistake? His words immediately after the shooting were not "oops, I thought she was headed right for us" but rather "f---ing b----".

Given these issues, is there any sliver of hope for Jonathan Ross's criminal defense, assuming he only claims self-defense?

Specifically, could a self-defense defense overcome the issues of there being no purpose to firing the gun, and the agents being the ones to escalate the situation?

For the purposes of this question, assume the facts as stated by the New York Times.

Footage shows 11 vehicles driving around the S.U.V., including this Chevy Tahoe driven by Mr. Ross.

At this point, another NYT article mentioned eyewitness reports that Ms. Good had been ordered to leave by an agent or officer. The NYT video analysis continues:

The agent [Ross]'s footage shows his interaction with Ms. Good and her partner. Ms. Good says, "That's fine dude, I'm not mad at you.". On the other side of the S.U.V., two agents arrive in a pickup. Ms. Good motions for them to go around her. She can be heard saying, "Just go around". Agents walk toward the car, saying, "Out of the car." Over the next six seconds, videos show an agent reaching into the S.U.V., Ms Good starting to drive, and Mr. Ross firing three shots.

Mr. Ross's cellphone video shows that he is moving in front of the S.U.V. as it is reversing, initiating a three-point turn, apparently to leave. Law enforcement officers are trained to avoid doing this because it puts them in danger.

The NYT article continues with analysis of another angle:

Another agent can be seen pulled back from the S.U.V. Both of them stumble, apparently slipping on the ice. This is also when many have said it looks like Mr. Ross is getting run over. When slowed down, it can be seen from multiple angles that there is a visible gap between the S.U.V. and Mr. Ross's legs, indicating that his feet are outside the S.U.V.'s path

and another:

This angle shows that Mr. Ross is not getting knocked over. He is standing with his hand near the headlight, his torso and legs away from the vehicle.

Improve this question
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

I will assume the following to be true, based on what you've asserted in the question (many of which appear to be red-herrings or mistatements of the law):

  • an ICE agent shot a driver (this isn't expressly stated in the question, but I am inferring it)
  • a bullet would not have stopped the car that was immediately headed towards the agent;
  • killing a driver makes a car go out of control;
  • there was no legitimate purpose to firing the gun;
  • the second and third shots are felonies;
  • self-defence is unavailable if the person killed was not the one making the situation life-threatening, and self-defence is unavailable if you were the one to escalate the situation to life-threatening (this is not actually the law, but you state it as a given in the question, so I will assume it to be true for the purpose of this answer);
  • the car was not headed towards the shooter
  • the car was turned away from the shooter
  • there was a gap between the car and the shooter
  • the shooter was unscathed
  • the shooter was able to do errands afterwards
  • the shooter escalated the situation by putting hands inside the vehicle
  • the shooter escalated the situation by running towards the vehicle and standing in front of it after asking it to move
  • the shooter escalated the situation by barking commands and startling the driver without giving her time to react
  • the shooter escalated the situation by creating and entering a life-threatening situation they weren't trained to handle
  • the shooter had a history of doing "stupid things" like trying to enter a moving vehicle
  • the shooter didn't take steps to de-escalate
  • the shooter was under a responsibility to take reasonable steps to save a life
  • it was obvious to the shooter that the driver was going to move the car in order to comply with previous orders
  • if the shooter (and other agents) had stepped away, no life-threatening situation would have been created

Assuming all the above to be true, you ask if there is any sliver of hope for the shooter to have a successful claim of self-defence.

In Canadian law, without a "legitimate purpose," self-defence would not be available

For a comparative perspective, I will present the law in Canada: self-defence would be unavailable in the circumstances, because there was no legitimate purpose to firing the gun.

The elements of self-defence are codified at s. 34 of the Criminal Code:

A person is not guilty of an offence if

(a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against them or another person or that a threat of force is being made against them or another person;

(b) the act that constitutes the offence is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force; and

(c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances.

Removing "any legitimate purpose" removes the possibility that the act was "committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves." With no legitimate purpose, self-defence is unavailable as a defence.

Improve this answer
0
0

The question is about Minnesota law. Therefore Minnesota statute 609.065 - Justifiable Taking of Life is likely to apply:

The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.

It indeed matters that Ross perceived a threat, real or not. However, as made clear by the portion I've bolded, it does not matter whether Ross thought that killing Ms Good would be effective in addressing the alleged threat (to run him over). What matters is whether shooting Ms Good was actually necessary to address such a threat.

From all the public evidence, we can see that shooting Ms Good was not necessary. He could have simply stepped away from the vehicle. Or not escalated the situation to begin with. Or noticed that the vehicle was turning away from him. Shooting the driver wouldn't change these things in time, if the threat were real. As made clear by 609.065, it does not matter what agent Ross thought about these better options when considering the justifiability of the killing.

Therefore, as far as Minnesota law is concerned, the shooting does not appear to be justified.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.