>Law enforcement is trained not to shoot at a moving vehicle

Unless that vehicle is an imminent deadly threat to the officer or others, which this officer reasonably believed.

>LE is trained not to put themselves in front or back of the vehicle, since you can get run over that way.

That’s a tactic, not policy - and again, which is it: Renee isn’t going to run someone over, so he can stand there, or she is going to run someone over, so he shouldn’t stand there?

>Agent Jonathan Ross did not follow his training, despite being dragged by a vehicle months earlier.

Past incidents do not legally compel an officer to act differently in the moment. Just as how getting dragged in the past doesn’t further justify his shooting, it also doesn’t mean he should’ve done anything differently.

>You also have to ask why Renee Good decided to leave her wife behind who tried to get in the locked passenger door. Another agent was grabbing the driver door and reaching his hand inside.

Yes, that further depicts her actions as reckless, chaotic, and contributes to the perception of her driving being dangerous flight, rather than casually driving away.

>There's no way a judge or jury looks at this and thinks the agents involved followed proper training.

Training is not the legal standard, “objective reasonableness” is. An officer could (and did) reasonably believe that a woman obstructing ICE, fleeing an interaction with such haste that she left her passenger, and driving forward with him at the front bumper is in imminent danger of being struck by the SUV.

There are numerous OIS involving people in vehicles and cops on foot, and they consistently are cleared, even when the officer is in a less dangerous position than the Minnesota scenario.