WHY WAS RENEE NICOLE GOOD ON THE SCENE?

Looking specifically at the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, by a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (or ICE) agent. To begin with, in our critical evaluation of this case, we ought to look at the facts and series of events leading up to the fatal shooting, because for some reason, many are pretending to be oblivious to this, or pretending it is not of consequence.

But, before we proceed, considering the sensitive details of this case, and the largely un-edited nature of the footage from the scene that will be shown in the duration of our discussion, I’d like to caution that viewer’s discretion is advised, and I’d like also to apologise sincerely for some of the improper language in the footage. So much of the facts surrounding this case are being contested, and thus we’ve tried to use footage that is largely unedited, with some instances where we’ve taken steps to remove improper language and speech, insofar as it does not conceal certain dialogue. And so, once again, viewers discretion is advised, and we do sincerely apologise for some improper language, which will be VERY minimal, following some cuts that we’ve made.

And so, now onto the first question, and the enquiry here is: why Renee Nicole Good on the scene? Well, on the 7th of January, in Minneapolis’s Central neighborhood, Renee Nicole Good, aged 37, found herself in a confrontation with ICE agents on snowy Portland Avenue near East 34th Street. This occurred amid a large-scale immigration enforcement operation targeting communities in the area, where agents had reportedly become stuck in snow and called for backup. According to federal officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and statements echoed by President Trump, Good was ACTIVELY obstructing ICE operations. They describe her maroon Honda Pilot SUV as positioned perpendicularly across the one-way street, deliberately blocking traffic and impeding agents’ movements. Witnesses, INCLUDING Renee Good’s wife Becca (sometimes referred to as her partner in the vehicle), confirmed that the couple had stopped in response to the ICE presence, with Becca (the wife who was not shot) stating that they were there (quote) “to support our neighbors”.

Then, as ICE agents approached, one reportedly issued verbal commands for Renee Good to exit her vehicle. Video footage, including body-worn camera material released by authorities, shows Good initially reversing slightly, perhaps maneuvering around the scene. However, she then accelerated forward, moving directly toward an ICE agent positioned in front of her SUV – Jonathan Ross, who fired multiple shots in what federal sources classify as self-defense, fearing imminent harm to himself. Therefore, Renee Good’s actions reflect intentional interference, potentially even rising to an act of obstruction; and establishing these facts matters because it refutes the contrary claims that lie about her presence on the scene.

And here I am referring to two notable claims, first from Renee Good’s ex-husband who claimed that she was not an activist and had simply dropped her son at school before encountering the agents en route home; and the second from state officials, including Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and Representative Ilhan Omar, who described Renee Good as a legal observer monitoring federal actions. No. Perhaps she had been on a school run prior, but at that moment she was being obstructive to the work of ICE agents. Secondly, even Becca, her wife, stated categorically that they had stopped in response to the ICE presence, with Becca (the wife who was not shot) stating that they were there (quote) “to support our neighbors”, which does allow reasonable inference of an active participation on their part.

But, in an additional development on the reasons for Renee Good’s presence on the scene, a now viral video, has given more context to the visuals that have been posted on social media. An interview covered by a news photojournalist, who was on-scene covering the Minneapolis ICE incident, reveals that Renee Nicole Good was not only obstructing ICE operations but was also the lead SUV deliberately guiding a protest and blocking federal agents. The interview further confirms that Renee Good was extremely effective at obstructing traffic and officers, and that obstruction was 100% intentional; and then when agents moved to remove her, she reversed then accelerated forward, prompting the fatal shots.

Now, to drive these points even further, I’d like to show two pieces of footage, the first is roughly 2 minutes just before the fatal encounter, in which you will hearing drivers hooting due to the obstruction that had caused a blockade on the road, and also see Reene’s maroon UV which had caused the blockade, forcing drivers to drive away from the road in some cases. You will also see her reverse briefly to allow a few cars to pass, and then drive forward when being engaged by the ICE officer. .

Once again, establishing these facts matters because it refutes the contrary claims that lie about Renee Good’s presence on the scene; while also giving insight into what prompted the actions of all ICE officers who were involved, including Jonathan Ross who fired the fatal shot.

DID RENEE GOOD ATTEMPT TO RUN OVER THE ICE AGENT, AND WAS THERE A THREAT TO HIS LIFE?

This then brings us to the second factual consideration, and that is: did Renee Good attempt to run over Jonathon Ross, the ICE agent who fired the fatal shot, and was there a perceivable threat to his life?

Now, in answering the question on whether Renee Good attempted to run over Jonathon Ross, and whether that amounted to a perceivable threat to his life, we ought first to establish whether a car can be deemed a weapon? And here, American courts across jurisdictions consistently recognise that a motor vehicle can qualify as a deadly weapon — but only when used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury, typically with intent or willful conduct directed toward harming someone. This principle appears in case law nationwide (e.g., the California Penal Code section 245(a)(1) treats vehicles as capable of supporting assault with a deadly weapon convictions when intentionally driven at victims; and similar rulings exist in Colorado, Minnesota, where Renee Good was fatally shot, and elsewhere).

Furthermore, as far as this case is concerned, on the one hand, a stationary family SUV like that which was driven by Renee Good, does not meet this threshold. However, a family SUV that is driven towards an ICE officer who Renee Good knew was in front of her car), and was notably accelerating towards him, not only counts as a weapon but also counts as a weapon that was used aggressively, considering the disproportionality in power between a human being and a car driving towards him/her.

Then secondly, there is additional footage that shows Jonathon Ross, the ICE agent at the front of the car, literally having to brace himself with one of his legs. This allows reasonable inference that, in that moment, he was trying to stop a car that was suddenly accelerating towards him with very little distance between him and the car. Then failing to brace himself, while the car was still accelerating towards him, he gets pushed by the car, and then fires his weapon. Considering that all of this happened in a matter of seconds, the following video is edited to show the sequence of events leading to the fatal shooting in a slower playspeed, so you can witness what we’ve just detailed. In essence, you see the SUV accelerating towards ICE Officer Jonathan Ross, you see him bracing himself, you see him failing to brace himself while the car was still accelerating towards him, and then see him fire at the driver side of the car, and then the SUV drives off hitting cars on the side of the road.

This is not easy to see (regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum), and it is not done to make light of the loss of life, but to push back against false narratives that weaponise such tragic developments towards diabolical political ends. And so, as far as pushing back against false narratives is concerned, the just-seen footage shows that there was a perceivable threat to the officer’s life at that moment.

Then additionally, in as far as whether there is a reasonable proportionality in shooting someone when they are driving towards you, in US law, there is a legal benchmark for use of force, rooted in the US Supreme Court’s 1989 Graham versus Connor decision. This ruling evaluates police actions from the officer’s on-scene perspective during split-second decisions, not hindsight. Factors include the severity of the crime, immediate safety threats, active resistance, and flight risk. In the Minneapolis case, it is thus possible to argue that the driver’s acceleration toward the agent created reasonable fear of serious harm or death, justifying the shooting as self-defense or defense of others. Additionally, when there is that short of a distance between the ICE officer and Renee Good’s car accelerating towards him (since he was standing in front of the car), it is NOT reasonable to argue that the officer could feasibly de-escalate further or assess intent instantly, because the car was moving towards him, while he was in front of it, and he had already failed to brace himself against the force of the car when it began to move towards him. 

Now, further evidence of this is from ICE agent Jonathon Ross’s own footage. And this footage exists because Renee Good’s wife and ICE agent Jonathan Ross  were taking footage of each other and the developing events. And so, even while he was in front of the car, ICE agent Jonathan Ross was still taking footage. His response to Renee accelerating in his direction from his footage is one of immediate shock, and also shows the speed and proximity of the car, thus giving him very little time to feasibility de-escalate.

FURTHER CONTEXTUALISING JONATHON ROSS’ PERCEPTION OF A THREAT TO LIFE 

Based on the just seen footage, it is also reasonable to infer that Jonathan Ross did perceive a threat to life. But, there is further reason why this is the case. A significant revelation in the aftermath of the fatal Minneapolis shooting involving an ICE agent has centered on the officer’s traumatic prior experience, which contextualizes his perception of danger and supports the legal defense of his actions.

On June 17, 2025, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officer Jonathan Ross was involved in attempting to arrest Roberto Carlos Munoz-Guatemala (also referred to as Munoz-Guatemala), a convicted sex offender and undocumented immigrant from Guatemala. During a traffic stop in Bloomington, Minnesota, Munoz-Guatemala refused commands to exit his vehicle. Ross broke a rear window and reached inside to unlock the door, but the suspect accelerated, trapping Ross’s arm and dragging him approximately 100 yards (with some reports citing 50 yards) while weaving erratically to dislodge him. Ross suffered severe injuries to his arm and hand, requiring 33 stitches and hospital treatment. Hospital footage and court affidavits document the physical toll, including deep lacerations and abrasions.

This incident, where Munoz-Guatemala was later convicted of assaulting a federal officer with a deadly weapon causing bodily injury, left Ross with lasting awareness of how quickly vehicles can become lethal weapons during arrests – especially involving high-risk individuals like sex offenders. It is thus possible to argue that this background heightens Jonathan Ross’s perception of a threat to life when, months later, another vehicle accelerated toward him during the confrontation that led to the shooting of Renee Nicole Good. Under the established legal standard for police use of force, which is “objective reasonableness” from the Supreme Court’s Graham versus Connor ruling (that we referenced earlier) – courts evaluate actions from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, considering split-second decisions amid evolving threats. The prior dragging incident provides critical context: which is that a reasonable officer with such prior experience could perceive an accelerating vehicle as an imminent deadly threat, justifying the use of force to protect himself.

AND SO, the revelation of ICE agent Jonathan Ross’s June 2025 experience being dragged by a car thus reframes the shooting not as isolated aggression, but as a response informed by real, recent experience – aligning with the objective reasonableness standard that prioritizes officer safety in chaotic, vehicle-involved encounters.

Additionally, this incident must be placed in the broader context of escalating dangers to ICE personnel. The Department of Homeland Security has reported a dramatic surge in assaults, with over 100 documented vehicular ramming incidents in recent months (some sources cite 66 vehicular attacks from January 2025 onward, which is a 3,200% increase from the prior year). These often involve so-called “watchers” who are really agitators, and sometimes linked to protests against immigration enforcement – deliberately using vehicles to disrupt arrests of high-risk targets. We saw such rammings in Chicago operations, where there were intentional reversals striking officers, and attempts to crush agents during traffic stops. Such patterns underscore the heightened risks ICE agents face nationwide, particularly amid polarized rhetoric around enforcement.

And this is perhaps why Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling has garnered nationwide praise from conservative circles and law enforcement supporters for a recent statement emphasizing that federal agents, including those from ICE and Homeland Security Investigations, are legitimate law enforcement officers. He delivered a firm message amid heightened tensions over immigration enforcement operations, stating that Federal agents, ICE, HSI, are officers. They are agents of law enforcement; and also warned that obstructing or attacking them – such as boxing in their vehicles or using a vehicle to plow into them – constitutes deadly force, justifying a proportional response from the agents to protect themselves. And quite importantly, he stressed the importance of the rule of law: saying that (quote): “We cannot become a society where we just decide to take everything in our own hands and start to commit crimes against law enforcement!”

Overall, this is to say that, therefore, is reasonable ground to characterise the agent’s actions as being informed by a perceived threat on his life, and thus in self defence. Going forwards, should there be potential civil lawsuits, their success is unlikely. Federal officers enjoy sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment and related doctrines unless excessive force is clearly established as unconstitutional. Recent Supreme Court opinions (e.g., referencing Justice Kagan) allow consideration of the officer’s prior experiences, such as the dragging incident, in assessing reasonableness. Qualified immunity further protects officials absent violation of clearly established rights. The group predicts any suit would struggle against the objective-threat analysis.

Then, on the potential for criminal charges, jurisdiction is pivotal. Under the Supremacy Clause and precedents like the 1890 Reagel case, states generally cannot prosecute federal officers acting in official capacity without federal consent. Any state attempt (e.g., by Minnesota authorities) would likely be removed to federal court. The panel notes post-George Floyd reforms have lowered barriers to prosecuting officers in some contexts, but federal preemption limits state action here. They view self-defense as a robust claim, making conviction improbable. Speculation arises that, if federal charges emerged, a pardon could be possible under a Trump administration. Recent developments include the FBI taking over the investigation independently, sidelining local/state involvement after initial deference.

HAVE THE FACTS BEEN MISREPRESENTED BY THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA & LOCAL MINNESOTA OFFICIALS?

But, then finally, we also have to ask whether there has been a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts of the case by the mainstream media and the Minnesota state officials. And well, it appears that this case has exposed local authorities, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and Governor Tim Walz , for their longstanding opposition to ICE operations. And this has resulted in their contribution to an environment where protesters feel emboldened to interfere with federal law enforcement, leading to escalated confrontations.

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS COULD HAVE HANDLED THE SITUATION WITH AN INTENT TO DE-ESCALATE THE TENSION

In light of what we just saw, including remarks from Tim Walz and Minneapolis mayor Frey telling iCE to leave Minnesota, there is a misrepresentation of the facts by the media; and a mishandling of the development by government officials. The problem here is fundamentally spiritual.

First, we already know that the left is led by the satan; their advocacy and political stance is not based on the wellbeing of otters but on the inspiration of evil spirits. Secondly, during the December 31st Service, the Man of God and president of Loveworld Inc warned that our world is in such a state that the evil thereof is so much that life has become cheap in many quarters. One of the manifestations of this is the ease with which people make a decision to end human life, e.g. people get shot in robberies for a cell phone, or get murdered while on a jog in their university campus, while others in society celebrate and even make fun of the assasination of someone they do not agree with.

Meanwhile, this disregard for life did not begin when a woman was willing to run her car into an ice officer, I would argue began with efforts to legitimise eugenics (which saw many people given the status of being sub-human, and thus designated a guinea pig that could be poked, prodded or killed). It also began with abortion through claiming that foetuses are not babies (despite the fact that life begins at conception). It perhaps also began with efforts to legalise euthanasia through deceptively framing it as so-called merciful killing, or with governments legalising the death penalty which saw them make the contradictory argument that murder was wrong, unless it is committed by the government. And we also saw this disregard for life with the ease with which governments justified sending their people to fight and die in wars that had no principle or protectionist justification; or even with the sensationalisation of a culture of killing law enforcement, seen especially in how this attitude was a staple in rap music for the longest time…

AND SO, not only is this disregard and devaluation of life fundamentally wrong, it is an indictment on the moral decadence in many parts of the world that began a long time ago, and as such (in light of the ICE shooting in Minneapolis) you can thus imagine that being a law enforcement officer has become incredibly difficult for many.

That said, these points remain: (1) First, it is not something that should be celebrated or paraded that a law enforcement officer killed a person. I believe in making a case for the justification of the actions of the officer in question, to prove the reasonableness of his response, but not in sensationalising a loss of life, even for those we do not agree with. In other words, death is an enemy of God – period – even when it results in the loss of life of someone on the left. (2) Secondly, the problem is fundamentally spiritual, and so our engagement must .

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso