How ICE Escapes Accountability

Jonathan Ross's shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis last week adds her to over 25 individuals shot and killed by U.S. immigration agents since 2015. Despite multiple fatalities, no ICE agent has faced criminal charges.

Inquiries following these incidents often reveal discrepancies between official claims and eyewitness reports. The Department of Homeland Security and White House frequently argue that agents acted in self-defense, yet visual evidence sometimes contradicts these narratives. However, such contradictions have rarely led to criminal indictments for ICE agents.

Exploring the Patterns

Between 2015 and 2021, across three U.S. presidencies, attempts to hold ICE accountable involved filing lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act requests. These efforts often aimed to reveal patterns and inconsistencies in the official accounts of these shootings.

Agent shootings commonly involve moving vehicles, with at least 19 incidents connected to 10 deaths and numerous injuries. Interestingly, some victims were neither armed nor the intended targets of enforcement actions. Despite some victims allegedly possessing firearms, there were occasions where agents described a suspect's body as a weapon.

Defensive Justifications

ICE agents frequently defend their actions by citing self-defense, a claim challenging to dispute. Federal agents have broad protection under qualified immunity, shielding them from many civil lawsuits. This legal doctrine was reinforced by recent Supreme Court decisions that limit citizens’ abilities to litigate against federal agents.

The self-defense argument hinges on an agent's belief of an immediate threat, a standard typically assessed from a law enforcement perspective rather than a civilian one. As Mike German, a former federal agent, explains, prosecutors and judges often side with officers’ judgments of life-threatening situations.

Investigative Hurdles

The responsibility for determining criminal prosecution typically lies with local or state attorneys. However, jurisdictional complications can impede the process, as seen when Minnesota's Bureau of Criminal Apprehension was excluded from a federal investigation into a particular case.

State investigators have previously withdrawn from joint federal probes, ostensibly due to jurisdictional challenges. For instance, a Virginia shooting investigation stalled over jurisdictional confusion, though a local attorney noted federal immunity shielded the involved ICE agent from state prosecution.

In Tennessee, a peculiar incident involving a deportation agent firing at a retreating truck also saw slow federal investigation, with final outcomes and FBI findings often kept from public disclosure.

Lack of Transparency

Internal reviews into ICE shootings are typically carried out by ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility, but these are not publicized, leading to a lack of transparency. The Department of Homeland Security’s outdated use-of-force protocols and the opaque nature of their disciplinary procedures compound this problem.

Political Shielding

Political influences also play a role. Homeland Security officials sometimes label incidents as acts of terrorism, a claim often devoid of legal substantiation. Efforts to protect agents accused of crimes are allegedly ongoing at the federal level, despite public demands for accountability.