Listen to the article
The first 48-72 hours of the investigation into what led to the fatal shooting of a woman in Minneapolis will shed more light on federal training and vetting practices though mixed messages from public officials in the investigation’s infancy are “not ideal,” a U.S. Navy veteran and former law enforcement member told Military.com.
A national conversation that has included public protests remains ongoing following the deadly shooting of a Minnesota mother, Renee Nicole Macklin Good, 37, by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer on Wednesday. The Trump administration, shortly in the aftermath of the killing, accused the victim of “domestic terrorism” while local and state leaders have called on federal authorities to vacate the region to dissuade any further potential violence or aggression.
The ICE officer who killed Good has been reported by numerous sources to be Jonathan Ross, who according to records has served with the agency as a deportation officer since 2015. While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not explicitly named Ross as the shooter, it has connected the identity of the agent to an incident last June where he was dragged by the vehicle of a fleeing suspect.
The disconnect between the statements made by federal officials, from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem all the way up to President Donald Trump, is not uncommon but it’s also “not ideal,” Justin Biedinger, a Navy veteran and former member of the Stockton Police Department in California, told Military.com.
“Investigators and operational leaders generally have to speak in evidence-and-process terms because facts can shift in the first 24-72 hours as video, forensics and witness statements come in,” Biedinger said. “Political leadership may speak more quickly in broader labels and narratives, but that comes with the risk that early labels can harden public opinion before investigators have completed the work.
“My view is straightforward: let the investigation play out and see where the evidence takes you. If leaders want to comment early, the most responsible approach is to be explicit about what is confirmed and what is still being verified. That’s how you protect public trust while the investigative process does its job.”
Urging for the investigation to play out has also been echoed by White House Border Czar Tom Homan, who implied a different perspective of the ongoing situation in Minneapolis and broke with DHS by waiting for all facts to be revealed via proper investigation.
What Investigation Looks Like Right Now
The current state of the investigation is in the FBI’s hands and will focus on locking down objective evidence and building a clear timeline, Biedinger said.
That equates to securing and reviewing all available video including body-worn camera footage, dash camera, nearby surveillance, and any residential doorbell footage; collecting physical evidence at the scene; documenting casing locations; preserving the vehicle for mechanical and data review; and conducting early witness interviews.
“A parallel track usually includes autopsy and toxicology, plus background interviews to establish decision making, intent and any contributing factors,” he said. “Investigators will also take formal statements from involved personnel, and the case will go through use-of-force review processes as the facts are validated.”
Local and statewide officials in Minnesota have criticized the federal government for essentially locking them out of the investigation, with officials saying Thursday that the state’s Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) was denied access to the probe—causing concerns related to transparency and public trust.
Training Practices In Play
The value of training standards comes into play during what Biedinger described as the “decision window,” or when and where an incident rapidly escalates.
“At the heart of the issue is whether your people have been trained on, and tested in, clearly articulated principles of use-of-force, threat assessment, and the proportional response in a high stress situation,” he said.
Training in scenarios such as this specific case, which involved a crowded scene of bystanders and vehicles, is also “critical” to avert escalation.
“In my experience, staffing and support influence outcomes,” Biedinger added. “When teams are undermanned or operating without adequate backup, it increases tension and compresses decision time—which can make de-escalation harder.”
How ICE Agents Should Be Vetted
Biedinger is the founder and president of Guardian Alliance Technologies, a company that provides cloud-based software designed to improve the process of vetting and hiring of public safety personnel. His years conducting hundreds of background investigations for sworn and non-sworn roles have lent themselves to this current platform used by more than 1,300 public safety agencies across 49 states to modernize vetting and flag risk earlier.
In the case of ICE, he didn’t say one way or another if the agency is properly vetting its applicants. However, he did say that vetting “is a balancing act between speed and rigor and can be especially susceptible to erosion when an agency is under pressure to fill seats.”
Training and vetting practices by ICE have drawn scrutiny all the way to the halls of Congress, where lawmakers have questioned deployed tactics as federal officials have touted recruiting booms. There have been claims previously reported by Military.com that ICE is sacrificing standards to more swiftly hire officers.
The baseline for vetting and hiring includes protocols similar to what have always existed, including background investigations, reference checks, integrity screening, and fitness for duty assessments.
“The smarter path is to modernize vetting and recruiting to increase throughput without decreasing the bar,” Biedinger said. “Technology can help agencies do that by removing administrative bottlenecks and speeding up background workflows in order to get the staffing right, and to relieve pressure on the personnel in the field.”
Read the full article here

37 Comments
The incident has sparked a necessary conversation about the use of force by law enforcement, and I hope that the investigation will lead to a greater understanding of the circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting.
The Trump administration’s accusation of “domestic terrorism” against the victim has sparked controversy and highlights the need for careful consideration of the language used in public statements about the incident.
The incident last June where the ICE officer, reportedly Jonathan Ross, was dragged by the vehicle of a fleeing suspect, may be relevant to the current investigation and should be further examined.
It’s unclear how this prior incident may have influenced the officer’s actions in the shooting of Renee Nicole Macklin Good.
The fact that the Department of Homeland Security has not explicitly named Jonathan Ross as the shooter, despite numerous sources reporting it, raises questions about transparency and accountability.
I’m concerned about the potential for the investigation to be influenced by political agendas, and hope that the FBI will prioritize objectivity and transparency in their findings.
I’m curious to know more about the training and vetting practices of ICE officers, and how these practices may have contributed to the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Macklin Good.
The mixed messages from public officials, including the Trump administration’s accusation of Good as a “domestic terrorist”, have created a sense of uncertainty and mistrust among the public.
The fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Macklin Good is a tragic reminder of the need for greater accountability and transparency in law enforcement, and I hope that the investigation will lead to meaningful reforms.
I’m hopeful that the investigation will provide a clear and unbiased account of the events leading up to the fatal shooting, and that this will lead to greater accountability and transparency in law enforcement.
The public protests and ongoing national conversation about the shooting highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in law enforcement, particularly in cases involving federal agencies.
The incident highlights the need for greater oversight and regulation of federal law enforcement agencies, to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.
I agree with Justin Biedinger that the most responsible approach is to be explicit about what is confirmed and what is still being verified, to avoid hardening public opinion before the investigation is complete.
The protests outside the Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, as well as the ongoing national conversation, demonstrate the need for a thorough and transparent investigation into the shooting.
The public’s demand for accountability and clarity in this incident is understandable, given the conflicting messages from public officials.
The investigation’s focus on locking down objective evidence and building a clear timeline is a step in the right direction, but I worry about the potential for political interference.
The fact that the Trump administration accused the victim of “domestic terrorism” shortly after the killing, while local and state leaders have called on federal authorities to vacate the region, raises questions about the potential for conflicting narratives in the investigation.
This discrepancy in messaging could indeed impact the public’s perception of the incident and the subsequent investigation.
I’m skeptical about the involvement of the FBI in the investigation, given the mixed messages from public officials, and wonder if they will be able to provide an unbiased outcome.
The call by White House Border Czar Tom Homan to wait for all facts to be revealed via proper investigation is a sensible approach, as it allows for a more thorough understanding of the circumstances leading up to the shooting.
The investigation’s findings will likely have implications for federal training and vetting practices, particularly in the context of ICE officers’ interactions with the public.
The Trump administration’s accusation of Renee Nicole Macklin Good as a “domestic terrorist” is disturbing, especially considering the investigation is still in its early stages.
The fact that the ICE officer, Jonathan Ross, was involved in an incident last June where he was dragged by a fleeing suspect’s vehicle raises questions about his training and vetting.
The FBI’s focus on securing and reviewing all available video footage, including body-worn camera footage and nearby surveillance, will be crucial in building a clear timeline of the events surrounding the shooting.
The use of body-worn camera footage, dash camera, and nearby surveillance footage will be crucial in determining the events leading up to the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Macklin Good.
The fact that the investigation is in the FBI’s hands raises questions about their ability to remain impartial, given the agency’s history of involvement in high-profile cases.
The disconnect between the statements made by federal officials, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and President Donald Trump, is not surprising but is still concerning, as it can create confusion and mistrust among the public.
It’s concerning that local and state leaders have called on federal authorities to vacate the region, as this could potentially escalate the situation and lead to further violence.
I appreciate Tom Homan’s perspective, urging for the investigation to play out and for all facts to be revealed via proper investigation, as this approach prioritizes objectivity and transparency.
The role of video evidence, including dash camera and residential doorbell footage, will be essential in reconstructing the events surrounding the shooting and determining the circumstances that led to the fatal outcome.
The call for federal authorities to vacate the region to dissuade further potential violence or aggression underscores the need for de-escalation and peaceful resolution in the aftermath of the shooting.
The fact that the shooting occurred in Minneapolis, a city with a complex history of community-police relations, adds another layer of complexity to the investigation and its aftermath.
The public’s reaction to the shooting, including protests and demands for accountability, demonstrates the importance of transparency and trust in the investigative process.
The use of residential doorbell footage as evidence is an interesting development, and I wonder how this footage will contribute to the investigation’s findings.
The fact that Jonathan Ross has been a deportation officer with ICE since 2015 raises questions about his experience and training, and how these factors may have contributed to the fatal shooting.
I agree that the investigation should be allowed to play out, and that leaders should avoid making premature statements or accusations, to avoid compromising the integrity of the investigation.
Justin Biedinger’s statement that investigators and operational leaders should speak in evidence-and-process terms is crucial in maintaining public trust during the investigation.