I got on the elevator at work the other day and saw a man watching Renee Good get killed on his phone. Like many people, he was parsing the video to see whether this was the police murder of an innocent woman or a protester attempting to run down a federal agent. After the killing, opinions have covered that range, with few in between. The two camps seem to mirror the two camps in our national politics, but careful attention to the facts can moderate opinions on both sides, and sometimes even lead to agreement.
Because Ms. Good is dead, we will never have conclusive evidence of what she intended in the moment. And based on the video alone, a reasonable person could conclude that she was attempting to escape a chaotic scene or comply with shouted orders to move the car, rather than intending to injure or even frighten the agent. That matters, because in both Minnesota law and the most likely federal statute, intent is not a technical footnote. It is an element the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Another related question is whether Agent Jonathan Ross acted in self-defense. Based on the timing of his shots, he may not have.
Minnesota Assault Requires Intent
Minnesota does not use a separate “battery” statute. Instead, Minnesota defines “assault” in two ways: (1) an act done with intent to cause fear in another of immediate bodily harm or death, or (2) the intentional infliction of, or attempt to inflict, bodily harm.
It is not enough, under Minnesota law, to show that Renee Good drove her car in a way that put Agent Ross in fear of being hit. Nor is it enough that her conduct scared him or created a dangerous situation. The prosecution must prove that Ms. Good intended to cause Agent Ross to fear immediate harm (the “assault-fear” theory) or intent to inflict or attempt harm (the “assault-harm” theory). This is a reasonable inference given that Ms. Good drove her car directly at the agent and would have hit him if he had not jumped out of the way.
Intent is often a disputed element, mostly because people do not usually say what they intent to do as they are doing it. Intent is usually proved by circumstantial evidence. Supporter of Ms. Good can plausibly say that she intended to leave, or to comply with shouted instructions to leave. If that’s right then Ms. Ross did not commit a crime under Minnesota law, which requires intent to scare Agent Ross or intent to harm him. Near-misses can happen for a lot of reasons. Since the video plausibly supports the interpretation that Ms. Good intended to escape or comply, it would be hard to prove assault. Moreover, Ms. Good is dead, so there is no way to obtain an admission from her that she did intend to scare or hurt the agent. This is a very common way for law enforcement to prove these cases. In other words, Ms. Good cannot settle the intent issue by implicating herself.
Federal Law Also Requires an Intentional Assaultive Act
It is a crime to assault a federal officer. (See 18 U.S. Code § 111.) In order to prove this crime, a prosecutor must prove that Ms. Good “forcibly assaulted” Agent Ross. This phrase is defined as follows:
There is a forcible assault when one person intentionally strikes another, or willfully attempts to inflict injury on another, or intentionally threatens another coupled with an apparent ability to inflict injury on another which causes a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.
Again, notice the intent requirements. The videos, standing alone, support the inference that Ms. Good intended to hit Agent Ross when she stepped on the gas pedal with him standing in front of the car. But it is also reasonable to infer that she intended to escape or to comply with orders to leave. When there are two reasonable inferences, and one of them means a criminal defendant is not guilty, the jury must accept the inference that leads to acquittal.
Why Death Matters Here
Intent is almost always proved circumstantially. Prosecutors infer it from the defendant’s acts, timing, and context. But in hard cases, a defendant’s own statements (before, during, or after) often supply the decisive evidence. That is what Ms. Good’s death takes off the table. We will never have her direct explanation. We will never have her post-incident admissions, denials, or inconsistent statements. We will never have her testifying (truthfully or not) about what she perceived and what she was trying to do.
None of that means intent is impossible to prove. It means the case is likely to remain a video-only inference fight, and video-only inference fights are precisely where reasonable doubt often lives, especially when the same footage can be plausibly read as panic and escape rather than deliberate intimidation or attempted harm.
Agent Ross Was Not Entitled to Shoot Ms. Good After He Was Out of Danger
In order to use deadly force in self-defense, Agent Ross must have reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or bodily harm. Ross may also use force to prevent death or great bodily harm to others. Deadly force, like firing a gun, can be used to defend against deadly force, like an oncoming car. The reasonableness of the force is judged from the perspective of an objectively reasonable person in the shoes of Agent Ross, not from Agent’s Ross’s subjective perspective. The fact that Agent Ross was previously hit and dragged by a car would not factor into this analysis.
Moreover, Agent’s Ross’s right to use deadly force in self-defense only lasts as long as he is in imminent danger. If someone tries to kill you, then passes out, you can no longer use force in self-defense. Similarly, if someone is fleeing from you it is (generally) not legal to use force on them in self-defense.
Applying these principles to Agent Ross, he was not entitled to shoot Ms. Good once he was out of the way of her car. At that point he would no longer be in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury. He could chase her and arrest her for assault with a deadly weapon. But he could not use force on her.
The video is unclear as to whether the shots were fired after Ross was out of the way of the car. Most people seem to think the first shot was fired when Ross was in the vehicle’s path, but that the second and third shot were fired after he had already jumped out of the way. Others think all the shots were fired after he was to the side of the car. This matters for a self-defense analysis.
A Narrow Conclusion
This is not a claim that Ms. Good’s driving was safe, wise, or morally defensible. It is not a claim about civil liability or constitutional “reasonableness.” It is a narrower claim about proof. Under Minnesota law, assault requires proof of intent . Under the most likely federal statute, § 111, the government must also prove bad intent, not merely that an officer was frightened.
Moreover, it does seem like some of Agent Ross’s shots, although understandable for a man who had been dragged by a car before, do not meet the legal definition of self-defense.
Notes
Since the possible crime occurred in Minnesota, not California, I did not discuss California law. However, California law would treat Ms. Good’s conduct differently. If this incident had occurred in California, it is more likely that she committed the crime of assault with a deadly weapon.
Minnesota uses the term “dangerous weapon” rather than “deadly weapon”. But this is a distinction without a difference, since the Minnesota term includes “any […] instrumentality that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.”
DA in CA 