If the hero who stood before the tanks in 1989 were to perform that same act in the United States in 2026, what do you think would happen? There is little doubt that many right-wing Chinese, who brandish anti-communist slogans, would shout: “Run him over!”
Following the shooting of Minnesota resident Renée Good by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, a segment of right-wing Chinese commentators argued that if one obstructs law enforcement or fails to follow orders, they should expect to be shot. One particularly bizarre individual even claimed that if his own wife were killed for stepping on the gas and “scaring” a police officer or ICE agent, he would neither protest nor shed a tear, asserting she would have deserved it.
One must wonder if such a person even has a wife—and who would willingly be his family? Why does he not consider the possibility that he himself might one day face the “MAGA iron fist” and be harmed or killed by the excessive force of federal agents, rather than projecting this scenario onto a perhaps non-existent spouse?
The Shield of Immunity and the Erosion of Rights
While U.S. law enforcement power is indeed extensive—protected by “Qualified Immunity” against civil claims—this does not grant agents the right to use unlimited force against citizens. If the logic of these commentators were true, such a country would be even more oppressive than the one they claim to oppose. These individuals are “naive supporters who inadvertently damage the cause”; they clearly love Trump more than they love the U.S. Constitution or civil liberties.
More tragic still is that many among this group are Hong Kongers who personally experienced the consequences of excessive police power in 2019. They are not merely defending the agent who fired the shot, Jonathan Ross; they are defending Trump’s policy of mass deportation. To execute this “population clearing policy,” ICE has been granted excessive authority to act with impunity in communities. How are these agents any different from the “Big Whites” (pandemic workers) who ran rampant across China? It is ironic that “anti-communist” Trump supporters view them as a “force of justice,” exhibiting a servant-like obedience to a power that could easily infringe upon their own rights.
Was the Use of Deadly Force Justified?
U.S. law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have clear use-of-force guidelines. DHS Policy 044-05 states that deadly force may not be used solely to prevent a suspect’s escape and prohibits firing at drivers of moving vehicles unless there is a reasonable belief of an immediate threat to life. Furthermore, agents are cautioned against unreasonably placing themselves in situations where deadly force becomes the only option.
The government, aware of the poor optics of agents shooting citizens, initially labeled Renée Good a “domestic terrorist” and attempted to “weaponize” her vehicle—a controversial legal tactic often used by the Trump administration to justify killings. Since last July, immigration agents have fired into vehicles at least six times, resulting in two deaths.
As more video footage has surfaced, the official narrative has shifted toward “self-defense.” Under the 1989 Graham v. Connor precedent, force is evaluated from the perspective of a “reasonable officer” on the scene, providing significant leeway for agents to claim they felt threatened.
However, the footage shows Renée Good was simply trying to drive away. While one agent reached into the car, Jonathan Ross—the agent who fired—was at a distance from the front left of the vehicle. Crucially, Ross was filming with a phone in one hand while shooting with the other. This highlights another controversy: agents were giving Good contradictory orders—was she supposed to “leave” or “get out of the car”?
The Reality of the “Threat”
White House supporters refuse to acknowledge that even if Good had obstructed enforcement, her actions—turning the wheel to the right to leave—did not pose a danger to the agents. Under Tennessee v. Garner (1985), police may not use deadly force against a fleeing suspect unless they pose an immediate threat of death or serious injury.
The video recorded by Ross himself confirms he was not in life-threatening danger. Good is seen calmly telling him, “I’m not mad at you.” A person fearing for their life does not walk around a “weaponized” vehicle while filming on a smartphone, even as they pull the trigger. Logic dictates that shooting a driver and causing a car to go out of control poses a far greater risk to the public. John P. Gross, a professor at the University of Wisconsin Law School, noted that if an officer truly perceived a threat, they would not be casually filming with one hand.
When the “threat” narrative faltered, the White House suggested Ross was suffering from PTSD due to a similar incident six months prior. If true, an agent with PTSD belongs at home, not at a high-conflict scene. While it is a relief that no bystanders were hit by the uncontrolled vehicle, a citizen still paid with her life.
The Uphill Battle for Legal Redress
The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” In legal terms, shooting or arresting a person is a “seizure.” In the George Floyd case, the prolonged kneeling on his neck was ruled an “unreasonable seizure,” leading to a $27 million settlement and a 22-year sentence for officer Derek Chauvin.
However, Section 1983, which allowed for the Floyd settlement, only applies to state and local officials, not federal agents. By involving the FBI and excluding the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the federal government has made it difficult for the state to prosecute Ross. The Justice Department now holds all the power, acting essentially as Ross’s defense counsel.
For the Good family, seeking justice is nearly impossible. The “Bivens Principle,” which once allowed citizens to sue federal agents for constitutional violations, is virtually defunct. Courts often dismiss such cases if they involve “national security” or “border management” (as seen in Egbert v. Boule, 2022).
The only remaining path is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which allows victims to sue the government for damages. 45While this may result in a payout—as seen in the Sutherland Springs ($144 million) or Whitey Bulger ($20 million) cases—it allows the individual agent to escape personal accountability. For families seeking justice rather than just money, this is a bitter outcome.
While taxpayer-funded settlements can sometimes pressure a system toward reform, the Trump administration may remain indifferent. As for the commentator who wouldn’t cry for his wife: if he understood the law, he might actually smile—her death could provide him with a settlement large enough to last a lifetime.
