The Renee Good Incident
The fatal shooting of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, has ignited national controversy, protests, and sharply divided public opinion.
Federal officials quickly described the shooting as self defense, claiming Good “weaponized” her vehicle. Videos of the incident have caused many to question that characterization, prompting legal experts to urge caution before reaching conclusions. To understand why this case has drawn such intense scrutiny, it helps to step back and examine a critical but often misunderstood issue: when U.S. law has allowed for deadly force against a vehicle and when it is not.
Vehicles as Deadly Force:
American courts do recognize that a vehicle can constitute a deadly weapon, but that recognition comes with limitations. Deadly force is justified when an officer or citizen reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm that cannot be avoided through other means.
Deadly force is not justified simply because a vehicle is moving, fleeing, or non compliant. This principle traces back to Tennessee v. Garner (1985), which rejected the idea that deadly force may be used merely to stop an escape, there must be some form of imminent threat present. Most agencies prohibit shooting at a moving vehicle unless the officer faces a threat such as being pinned, trapped, or unable to move out of harm’s way. Despite those restrictions, courts have upheld deadly force against drivers in a narrow category of cases. These cases share several consistent elements:
1. Imminent, Unavoidable Threat
Courts have found deadly force justified where officers were directly in the vehicle’s path and could not safely disengage. In such cases, the vehicle was not merely present—it was actively being used as a weapon in a way that left no reasonable alternative.
2. Continued Dangerous Conduct
In cases like Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Supreme Court upheld officers’ actions where a driver led police on a high speed chase and repeatedly attempted to ram police vehicles. The driver continued to pose a grave risk to the public even after momentary stops.
3. No Safe Avenue of Retreat
Courts consistently scrutinize whether the officer could have stepped aside, retreated, or disengaged. If evidence shows an officer voluntarily placed themselves in front of a vehicle when safer alternatives existed, courts are far less likely to find the shooting justified.
Why the Renee Good Case Is Controversial.
The controversy surrounding the Good shooting stems from the fact that key elements present in justified vehicle force cases are disputed here. The initial video appears to show that Good’s front wheels were turned to the right and she appeared to be trying to flee the scene. The officer was in front of the vehicle when it started moving forward, but ended up to the side of the vehicle as Good accelerated. Good was also likely focused on the officer trying to open the door and probably did not see the officer in front of her car in time to stop accelerating. Likewise, the officer in front of her car could not see that the wheels and would not have known her intentions or if the vehicle was going to veer right or continue to go straight. The officer had to make the decision to shoot or not shoot at the time he first noticed the vehicle was headed towards him. That decision to shoot was likely exacerbated by a couple of facts. First, he was standing on a very slippery road. If he would have fallen in front of the vehicle, he would have likely been run over. Second, and probably more impactful, was that recently the officer had been dragged by a vehicle in a similar situation which resulted in a trip to the hospital where he needed over 30 stitches to treat his injuries.
Human decision making under stress
Once the brain decides to act (fight or flight) it takes about one-half to three-quarters of a second for that action to move from the brain to the extremities and for the action to start. Similarly, once the brain decides to stop that action, it also takes one-half to three-quarters of a second before the action actually stops. This does not include the time it takes to process the situation and how it is unfolding or changing in the moments after the decision to start and before the decision to stop. It is very likely that Good did not see the officer in front of her car until after she decided to flee, and she would have little or no time to process the situation and react to stop the vehicle. At the same time, the officer may have noticed that the vehicle was moving to the right after he had already made the decision to shoot, but would not have had time to stop the action. Especially if he was still trying to determine what would happen if he slipped or potentially dragged by the vehicle again. The truth is neither Good (flight) nor the officer (fight) would have been able to stop the actions they had already put into motion before the shots were fired.
That distinction is critical! Courts typically evaluate use of force based on what a reasonable officer would have perceived in the moment, and not on post incident characterizations, political statements, or slow-motion instant replays analysis. These factors, not slogans or outrage, should determine whether the shooting aligns with previously upheld cases of justified force.
Final Thoughts
Public debate often treats shootings involving vehicles as binary: either obviously justified or obviously criminal. The law is far less simplistic. The Renee Good case sits at the intersection of policy, constitutional law, and human decision making under stress. Understanding how courts have ruled in proven cases of justified force against vehicles helps clarify why this incident has raised so many unresolved questions—and why careful, fact based analysis matters more than ever.
