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 Supreme Court ruling of Barnes v Felix dated May 15, 2025.
After decades of debates and various circuit court decisions, the question of when a law enforcement officer/agent of any type in the USA can kill a person, we finally have a national law in place. It certainly limits when law enforcement can use deadly force. This was a unanimous decision, 9-0!
The actual ruling of Barnes v Felix can be found at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-1239_onjq.pdf.
The following is the Syllabus:
BARNES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BARNES, DECEASED v. FELIX ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 23–1239. Argued January 22, 2025—Decided May 15, 2025
Respondent Roberto Felix, Jr., a law enforcement officer, pulled over Ashtian Barnes for suspected toll violations. Felix ordered Barnes to
exit the vehicle, but Barnes began to drive away. As the car began to move forward, Felix jumped onto its doorsill and fired two shots inside.
Barnes was fatally hit but managed to stop the car. About five seconds elapsed between when the car started moving and when it stopped.
Two seconds passed between the moment Felix stepped on the doorsill and the moment he fired his first shot.
Barnes’s mother sued Felix on Barnes’s behalf, alleging that Felix violated Barnes’s Fourth Amendment right against excessive force.
The District Court granted summary judgment to Felix, applying the Fifth Circuit’s “moment-of-threat” rule. The Court of Appeals af-
firmed, explaining that the moment-of-threat rule requires asking only whether an officer was “in danger at the moment of the threat that
resulted in [his] use of deadly force.” 91 F. 4th 393, 397. Under the rule, events “leading up to the shooting” are “not relevant.” Ibid. Here,
the “precise moment of threat” was the “two seconds” when Felix was clinging to a moving car. Id., at 397–398. Because Felix could then
have reasonably believed his life in danger, the panel held, the shooting was lawful. Id., at 398.
Held: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which
requires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from “the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene.” Graham v. Connor, 490
U. S. 386, 396. The inquiry into the reasonableness of police force requires analyzing the “totality of the circumstances.” County of Los
Angeles v. Mendez, 581 U. S. 420, 427–428; Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S.1, 9. That analysis demands “careful attention to the facts and circumstances” relating to the incident. Graham, 490 U. S., at 396.
Most notable here, the “totality of the circumstances” inquiry has no time limit. While the situation at the precise time of the shooting will
often matter most, earlier facts and circumstances may bear on how a reasonable officer would have understood and responded to later ones.
Prior events may show why a reasonable officer would perceive other- wise ambiguous conduct as threatening, or instead as innocuous.
Plumhoff v. Rickard, 572 U. S. 765, well illustrates this point. There, an officer’s use of deadly force was justified “at the moment” partly
because of what had transpired in the preceding period. Id., at 777.
The moment-of-threat rule applied below prevents that sort of attention to context, and thus conflicts with this Court’s instruction to
analyze the totality of the circumstances. By limiting their view to the two seconds before the shooting, the lower courts could not take into
account anything preceding that final moment. So, for example, they could not consider the reasons for the stop or the earlier interactions
between the suspect and officer. And because of that limit, they could not address whether the final two seconds of the encounter would look
different if set within a longer timeframe. A rule like that, which precludes consideration of prior events in assessing a police shooting, is
not reconcilable with the fact-dependent and context-sensitive approach this Court has prescribed. A court deciding a use-of-force case
cannot review the totality of the circumstances if it has put on chronological blinders.
The Court does not address a separate question about whether or how an officer’s own “creation of a dangerous situation” factors into the
reasonableness analysis. The courts below never confronted that issue, and it was not the basis of the petition for certiorari. Pp. 4–9.
91 F. 4th 393, vacated and remanded.
If you go to the SCOTUS link above, you will also find the opinions of Kagan and Kavanaugh.
Above is the Missouri Sheriff’s Association's explanation of Barnes v Felix.
Above are the oral arguments from Barnes v Felix.