Trump, Vance, Noem, and MAGA are trying their best to blur the facts, the media, the very minds of those who do not do due diligence in researching, seeking the actual facts.
The fact of the matter is that the death of Renee Nicole Good was a PUBLIC EXECUTION, A COLD-BLOODED MURDER!
It has taken far too many years for this kind of law enforcement ruling to finally become national law. On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 on the case known as Barnes v Felix. The highest court in the land basically ruled against previous lower court decisions, therefore superseding them.
By watching the videos that are available to the public, it is clear to see that Jonathan Ross did not follow enforcement protocol several times before illegally executing Renee Nicole Good. The right wing is trying to claim that Ross was hit by Good’s car and that he fired his sidearm in self-defense.
Using video evidence and constitutional law, those claims will not be valid in court. Let’s examine the strong possibilities of what will happen when Jonathan Ross goes to trial for murder. Let’s remember, SCOTUS ruled there is no immunity in these cases.
First, we shall Perplexity AI Comet website to see what it will find when we ask it, “Using SCOTUS’s Barnes v Felix decision, does it apply if Jonathan Ross is brought to trial for the murder of Renee Nicole Good?”
“Will the Barnes v Felix decision apply to Jonathan Ross killing Renee Nicole Good?”
Perplexity’s Comet answered with this:
The Barnes v. Felix decision will almost certainly shape how courts and investigators evaluate Jonathan Ross’s shooting of Renee Nicole Good, but whether it “applies” in the sense of creating criminal or civil liability for Ross depends on facts that have not yet been adjudicated.
What Barnes v. Felix Changed
The Supreme Court in Barnes v. Felix rejected the Fifth Circuit’s “moment of threat” rule, which had told courts to look only at the final split‑second when an officer fired. Instead, the Court held unanimously that excessive‑force claims under the Fourth Amendment must be judged under the totality of the circumstances, including the officer’s own prior actions and all events leading up to the shooting.
Under this standard, a court cannot ignore how an encounter started, escalated, or was handled before the instant when deadly force was used. That broader timeline can cut either way: it may show the officer unreasonably created the danger, or it may show that the officer’s fear was reasonable given everything that had happened.
How it connects to Jonathan Ross
Jonathan Ross is the ICE agent identified as the person who fatally shot Renee Nicole Good during an enforcement operation in Minneapolis, firing into her vehicle as she attempted to drive away. Video and eyewitness accounts indicate that multiple agents were present and exposed to the same situation, but only Ross chose to open fire, a fact that legal experts have already flagged as problematic under a reasonableness analysis.
Reports also note Ross’s prior experience of being dragged by a car during a 2025 incident where he broke a suspect’s window and was injured, which may have shaped his perception of risk in encounters with vehicles. Under Barnes’s totality‑of‑circumstances test, both Ross’s actions leading up to the shooting and that prior incident could be relevant to evaluating whether his use of deadly force against Good was objectively reasonable or instead reflected an unreasonable, subjective fear.
Criminal versus civil implications
Barnes v. Felix is a Fourth Amendment excessive‑force case, so its direct effect is strongest in civil suits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens‑type claims, where plaintiffs allege unconstitutional deadly force and must overcome qualified immunity. By requiring courts to consider the entire interaction, Barnes makes it harder for officers to win early dismissal by pointing only to a split‑second claim of perceived danger.
For criminal prosecution of Ross (for example under Minnesota homicide statutes or federal civil‑rights crimes), Barnes does not automatically decide guilt, but its reasoning about how to evaluate “reasonableness” and officer‑created danger will likely influence how judges instruct juries and how appellate courts review any conviction. Prosecutors would still need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross’s shooting was unjustified and met the mental‑state requirements of the charged offense.
Bottom line for the Good case
Because Barnes is a Supreme Court decision on the constitutional standard for police use of force, it is binding on federal and state courts nationwide, including in any civil or criminal case arising from Good’s death. That means decision‑makers will not be allowed to excuse Ross’s conduct solely by focusing on the last instant before he fired; they must evaluate his behavior under the full sequence of events, including how the stop was conducted, what alternatives existed, how other agents reacted, and whether Ross’s own prior experiences unreasonably heightened his response.
Federal Prosector Glenn Kirschner speaks on the Brian Tyler Cohen podcast
Federal Prosector Glenn Kirschner give his early opinion on the killing of Renee Good. This is before the body cam of Ross's was released.