Could Renee good have avoided the tragedy by following the instructions of law enforcement
Executive summary
Based on available reporting, it cannot be determined definitively that Renee Good would have avoided being shot simply by "following instructions" because accounts differ about what instructions, if any, were given and about whether her vehicle presented an imminent deadly threat to officers; DHS portrays the shooting as self-defense against a weaponized vehicle while local officials and video viewers dispute that characterization [1] [2]. The question hinges on contested facts captured in video, conflicting official narratives about whether officers were impeded, and legal standards that permit deadly force only when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat [3] [4].
1. What the Department of Homeland Security and ICE say: perceived imminent threat
DHS and ICE have publicly framed the shooting as a response to an immediate danger, saying Good "weaponized her vehicle" and attempted to run over officers, which they argue justified deadly force under departmental rules allowing lethal force when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury [1] [3]. That official narrative implies that compliance with verbal commands might not have changed the outcome if officers reasonably believed a vehicle posed lethal risk, and DHS officials described the action as self-defense and called it a domestic terrorism concern in some statements [5] [6].
2. What local officials, witnesses and video suggest: ambiguity and dispute
Local leaders, independent observers and cellphone/body camera clips shared publicly cast substantial doubt on the DHS account, with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey saying the footage did not support DHS claims that Good was "weaponizing" her SUV and video showing her saying “I’m not mad at you” moments before she was shot [2] [1]. Police and city officials also noted there was nothing indicating Good was a target of any prior law-enforcement investigation, and multiple on-scene videos and witness statements prompted protests and immediate public skepticism about whether she posed an imminent threat [7] [8].
3. Training, prior incidents, and the officer’s perspective complicate the counterfactual
Reporting highlights the ICE officer’s training and past field experiences — including an incident in 2025 when he was dragged by a vehicle — that federal defenders point to as context for his split-second perception of danger, and ICE emphasized his firearms and active-shooter instruction background [1] [6]. At the same time, legal analysts and some local commentators argued the officer could have moved aside or allowed the vehicle to leave and later coordinated a traffic stop, suggesting multiple reasonable tactical alternatives existed that might have prevented a lethal outcome [9].
4. Legal standards and investigatory realities that shape "could have avoided"
Under DHS and constitutional law frameworks, deadly force is legally justified only where an officer has a reasonable belief of imminent threat, an inherently subjective "reasonable officer" standard that prosecutors must scrutinize in any criminal inquiry; federal officers also enjoy significant protections like qualified immunity that complicate later civil accountability even when the tactics are questioned [3] [10]. The FBI has taken charge of the probe and local officials have raised concerns about exclusivity of the federal investigation, which affects what facts will be fully examined and ultimately determines whether the shooting complied with policy [11] [4].
5. Conclusion: plausible alternatives but no definitive answer in public record
Available reporting shows plausible nonlethal alternatives and disagreements among experts and officials about whether those options were practical in the moment, meaning it is reasonable to say Renee Good might have avoided being shot if different tactical choices were made by agents or if she had encountered a different enforcement posture, but reporting does not establish that simply "following instructions" would certainly have prevented the tragedy because the precise instructions given, the officer’s perceived danger, and the content of all video evidence remain contested and under federal investigation [9] [1] [11]. The public record therefore supports competing interpretations: one that the officer reasonably feared for his life and another that the encounter could have been de‑escalated — and at present neither narrative is conclusively proven [4] [5].