Part of the firearms training I took at the FBI Academy in Quantico involved something called the Firearms Training Simulator (FATS). Weirdly, I had done FATS once even before training to become a special agent, when I worked at the U.S. Attorney’s office in Baltimore my first summer in law school: one of our “field trips” was going to the firing range with the ATF. We fired a variety of weapons (including an AK-47), and, since I had never shot a gun before that, it was the first time I really appreciated the skill and training you need to handle firearms safely and accurately.
FATS is a life-size video screen connected to a laser pointer firearm where you, the agent traineee (holding said firearm), are part of a two-person team going to do some kind of investigative activity. Maybe you’re looking for a suspect, maybe you’re serving a subpoena, maybe you’re going to effect an arrest. And then, something goes wrong. The suspect runs. Your partner is attacked. A kid comes around the corner during the interview holding a gun. (Seriously, that was one of the scenarios and it still gives me terrible flashbacks.) At that moment, you have to decide what to do. In a matter of seconds, you have to assess the situation, yell commands if feasible, and decide: Shoot or don’t shoot. You know if you made the wrong choice if the entire screen goes red.
One key refrain we were reminded of over and over is this: action beats reaction. That is, the time it takes for your brain to fully process whether the suspect is, say, reaching for a wallet or a weapon is going to be too long if, in fact, it is a weapon and the suspect uses it against you. So in making a decision to shoot, your brain is evaluating a number of factors to assess the threat to your and others safety in usually less than a second — which is why the repetitive training mattered. (We spent about 100 hours on firearms training and fired around 4,000 rounds at Quantico.) FATS training, and our training in Hogan’s Alley, the FBI Academy’s simulated town where we would do live exercises with hired actors, gave me an appreciation for the split-second decision making and tunnel vision that can often accompany a decision of when to use deadly force, and why sometimes a tragic shooting might nevertheless have been reasonable from the point of view of the officer in that moment.
The shooting of Renee Nicole Good was not one of those instances.
During FATS training, the FBI Academy legal instructor was on hand, watching and evaluating. Students who didn’t issue warnings when they should have, and were too trigger happy were dinged. Others who spent too much time giving commands even as the threat increased, until they were killed, were dinged. And anyone who did decide to shoot, but could not articulate the specific basis in the policy that authorized the shoot, or used deadly force in violation of the policy, were dinged. Big time.
The DOJ deadly force policy is as follows (bold added):
Law enforcement and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.
Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.
Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.
If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.
Warning shots are not permitted outside of the prison context.
Officers will be trained in alternative methods and tactics for handling resisting subjects, which must be used when the use of deadly force is not authorized by this policy.
Deadly force should not be used against persons whose actions are a threat solely to themselves or property unless an individual poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others in close proximity.
This policy was updated in 2022, and I believe the policy regarding vehicles was either modified then or at some point after I left training to include the requirement to move out of the path of the vehicle when feasible. (I also believe the language regarding fleeing subjects was tightened from the time when I was in training.) I note that potential change because of the contrast between the DOJ’s policy and the DHS policy on deadly force, which does not include the part about moving out of the path of a moving vehicle and also authorizes deadly force for fleeing suspects under certain conditions (bold added):
A DHS LEO may use deadly force only when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person.
a. Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape.
a. DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy. Before using deadly force under these circumstances, the LEO must take into consideration the hazards that may be posed to law enforcement and innocent bystanders by an out-of-control conveyance.
This thread from Bellingcat and this New York Times analysis have video and graphic illustrations of the sequence of events. [WARNING: videos in these links and the ones below are disturbing.]
Based on them, I have a few observations:
It’s clear to me that the shooter, Jonathan Ross, does not perceive Good to be a threat as she is idling. We know this because he walks closely around the vehicle holding his camera — meaning he is not focused on Good or her partner — and continued to film the entire time.
The two officers who approach the vehicle also do not perceive her to be a threat. We know this because literally one of them walks right up to the car and attempts to open her door.
This is crucial moment #1: At the 29 second mark of the footage from Ross’s own camera, he switches the phone from his right to left hand — meaning he switches the phone to leave his dominant (shooting) hand free. At this moment, Good is still idling, and her attention appears to be directed at the driver’s side window at the approaching two officers. To put a finer point on it, Good is not doing anything that would in that moment create a reasonable threat.
Crucial moment #2 comes a few seconds later: Ross moves directly in front of the vehicle, still filming as Good is reversing her vehicle. If you reasonably believe that someone is about to use their vehicle as a weapon, you simply do not get directly downrange of the weapon. We therefore know from this action that at this moment he still does not perceive Good to be endangering him.
Crucial moment #3. Having switched his phone to his left hand and moved to the front of the vehicle as Good is reversing, Ross’ right hand is already on his holstered weapon. She has not yet put the car into drive! Remember that action beats reaction. If Ross was actually reacting to a threat posed by Good moving the vehicle forward — remember, the narrative that has been put out is that Ross believed Good was about to run over him with her vehicle — he would not be unholstering his weapon simultaneously with Good accelerating the vehicle. I’m sorry, I know it happens in the movies, but it doesn’t work like that in real life.
Crucial moment #4. As Good accelerates, Ross’s his body is not in the path of the vehicle when he shoots, he is to the side. He then leans in, crossing his right hand in front of the windshield to shoot. Again, this is not a defensive action. If you are surprised by someone moving at you, you instinctively step away. To the extent that you fire your weapon, you will fire it in front of you. You don’t move toward the path of a vehicle moving away from you in order to get a shot in through the front of the windshield.
Crucial moment #5. As Good drives away, Ross takes two additional shots. Any threat that existed has already passed at that point. I don’t see any way to get around this.
Crucial moment #6. As Good’s vehicle careens to the left and crashes into a parked car, Ross can be heard saying, “Fuck you, bitch.” Admittedly, I have only been in training simulations, and thankfully have never personally shot someone. However, I know from the adrenaline and tunnel vision I described above in mere simulations that immediately after a(n even fake) shoot, you’re in a state of shock or at least processing what just happened. I personally don’t think — if you are acting purely defensively and reactively because your very life was in danger — you would have the presence of mind in that moment to feel or express directed anger at the target.
Crucial moment #7. Ross never drops his camera or stops filming, even as he is firing his weapon. This, to me, is unbelievable and especially damning. Again, I know Rambo goes around double fisting in the movies, but that is not how you are trained. At the FBI Academy we were trained to shoot with one hand in the event that our other hand was injured. In fact, in such a case you should keep the free hand close to the chest to avoid shooting your own hand. Obviously, if your free hand is not injured it should be on the weapon for maximum safety and accuracy of aim at your target. And it should go without saying that holding a camera while discharging a firearm is distracting and at the very least demonstrates a reckless disregard for human life, IMO. But to me, it really shows that Ross was not particularly startled or reacting to a perceived threat, because if he really believed he was in a life and death situation I think he’d obviously have dropped the damn phone and focused on his own weapon and where it was pointing.
To me, the relevant window of time in assessing whether Ross reasonably believed that Good posed an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury can only begin from the moment Good accelerates. It could not be while she is reversing the vehicle, because we know that he voluntarily moves in front of her while she is doing that. And, as noted above, at the point where Good does accelerate, Ross has already 1) switched his phone to leave his shooting hand free; 2) moved in front of the vehicle; and 3) has his hand on the weapon in the holster. All of these are anticipatory, not reactive, movements.
The relevant window ends the moment Good drives away. There is no reason to believe Good poses a threat to anyone at that point (leaving aside that she has been shot) — she is not armed and dangerous, or fleeing from the scene of a violent crime, etc. And yet, Ross 1) continues to fire at her; 2) yells an expletive at her; and 3) continues filming. These are the actions of someone who is pissed off, not someone who believes their life has just been threatened.
I personally think that Ross moved in front of the vehicle intending to unholster his weapon — perhaps not to shoot her, but maybe to train it on her in order to threaten her and force her to exit from the vehicle. (To be clear, there was no justification for him to do even that.) And I think when she moved forward to drive away, it made him mad — perhaps he was already pissed because Good’s partner had taunted him — and he wanted to show her who was in control. But taunts, and feeling emasculated, however real that felt to Ross, aren’t reasons that justify the use of deadly force.
I was one of those Hogan's Alley actors back in the early 1990s. In the scenarios where I was armed (we had guns with blanks) they were usually written to be resolved without anyone resorting to discharging their weapon. When I did decide to discharge my weapon, the scenario ended and the trainees were dinged.
Once some veteran agents came through for some reason and the difference was night and day. They had total control of the situation in every scenario I played, versus the uncertainty of many of the trainees. Experience matters.
Which is why I am even more inclined to think this was intentional. Jonathan Ross has a lot of training and experience. He is an Iraq war veteran and has been on the job with CBP and ICE for nearly two decades. As you said, he was just pissed.
I have to wonder why nobody seems to be addressing the fact that ice has no jurisdiction over US citizens and that the killer had no right in issuing orders in the first place? There's a whole lot of discussion around justifiable use of force and no discussion around unjustifiable use of power. In legitimizing his right to issue any orders in the first place, we are normalizing something which isn't even legal.