The recent tragic event in Minnesota is convoluting two separate and serious issues; the validity and efficacy of the President’s immigration enforcement policy and the use of deadly force by police officers.

These issues need to be separated to ensure a fair and impartial analysis and investigation of the officer involved in the shooting.

The are several elements which are indisputable.

The officer was engaged in a legitimate law enforcement effort.

The officer was acting in accordance with his responsibilities as a member of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

When one engages in protest,
this right comes with responsibilities.

Rene Good was exercising her right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

From the moment the officer involved first encountered Ms. Good, until the moment he made the decision to employ deadly force, the only facts that need be considered are if the officer’s encounter with Ms. Good was within the parameters of his job, whether Ms. Good was in a position to harm officers, and what the officer perceived of that threat.

If an officer, acting within the color of law and performing a function of his job, perceives a threat or act of deadly force directed against himself or others he has the absolute right to engage the threat with the force necessary to stop it, up to and including deadly force.

Investigating this incident needs to be limited to the facts of the incident, not the issue of the policies that put the officer there in the first place.

The tragedy here is Ms. Good may very well have not intended to harm the officers. From all the reports of family and friends, she was a caring and considerate person who was upset by the government policy and felt obligated to voice her protest.

Now many of you will find this hard to accept, but none of Ms. Good’s admirable qualities matter. The officer had no way of knowing that in the short time of the encounter. All the officer involved had to go on was what unfolded before him.

Everyone has the right to protest against government policy. No one should fear engaging in protest because of the potential threat from the government.

The overwhelming majority of ICE officers are conscientious and professional. They perform a difficult and sometimes dangerous job. The officer involved will live with his decision to take a human life for the rest of his, it will not be easy to accept that responsibility. People who don’t understand that have never faced the possibility.

When one engages in protest, this right comes with responsibilities. The officers tasked with keeping the peace do not know anything about the protesters. They have no way of gauging the individual threat level of a crowd of people.

If you engage in protest, you need be mindful of your actions. This is not to blame the victim here, but if you are operating a several thousand pound vehicle. and are engaged in a verbal confrontation with the police, you have a responsibility to make sure you don’t inadvertently pose a threat.

The investigation of this incident needs to focus solely on the circumstances from the moment of the initial encounter up to the use of deadly force and nothing else. Arguing about the validity of the policy or the legitimacy of the officer’s presence clouds the issue.

This may well be a tragic consequence of an ill-conceived policy. An unnecessary death is the result of such circumstances, but we have to consider the alternative. If the officer had been fatally struck, would the level of outrage be the same?

Policy didn’t kill Ms. Good, circumstances did.

Police officers are faced with making these decisions in seconds. An officer is expected to make these decisions in less time than it takes to read this sentence. They do not have the luxury of deliberation and extensive consideration of their options. They have to deal with immediacy of the moment.

To expect them to do otherwise is ludicrous.

Clearly some review of the use of force policy and procedures in place needs to happen. It is legitimate to ask whether firing at a vehicle is an effective method of ending the threat, a dead driver behind the wheel of a running vehicle may be more deadly. But any change or modification to the policy cannot alter the circumstances of the incident. The officer, in his perception, believed his life or the lives of his fellow officers were in jeopardy.

He had the right and responsibility to act.

The tragedy of the result notwithstanding, this is all that should be considered in determining the legitimacy or illegality of the officer’s actions.