Veteran Lawyer Argues With VP JD Vance's Claim Renee Nicole Good's Shooter Has 'Absolute Immunity'

Vance's 'Absolute Immunity' Claim Debunked

President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance have publicly supported Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who shot Good during an encounter on Wednesday, 7 January, in Minneapolis. The VP was confident that the officer would not be indicted, citing, 'absolute immunity.'

Absolute immunity is a legal protection that shields high-ranking government officials, including judges, prosecutors, and legislators, from civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution while performing their duties. This is to ensure that they will carry out their duties without the fear of personal liability.

Seasoned lawyers, however, disagreed with his claim. Robert Bennett, a veteran lawyer in Minneapolis who has removed thousands of officers from office, told Mother Jones that 'ICE agents do not have absolute immunity.'

Bennett argued that for an officer to be protected, their actions must be 'objectively reasonable' under the circumstances. He added that there were countless cases where federal law enforcement agencies were prosecuted, including ICE. In Ross's case, Bennett believed that an investigation was necessary.

'It's clear under the law that a federal officer who shoots somebody in Minnesota and kills them is subject to a Minnesota investigation and Minnesota law,' he added.

Per Bennett, if an investigation concludes that Ross used excessive force, he could be held liable under Minnesota law.

'Absolutely Ridiculous'

Bennett is not the only legal expert to debunk Vance's claim of 'absolute immunity.' Michael JZ Mannheimer, a constitutional law expert at Northern Kentucky University's Salmon P. Chase College of Law, shared the same sentiment as Bennett, even calling Vance's statement 'absolutely ridiculous.'

'The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,' he told CNN.

Timothy Sini, a former federal prosecutor in New York, added that 'Officers are not entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of law.' However, prosecuting an officer will not be an easy feat, as they have to weigh whether the action was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.

For an ICE agent to claim such a shield, they would typically have to prove that their specific function was so sensitive that public policy requires an exemption from all liability. Most legal scholars, however, agree that a roadside shooting does not meet the functional test for absolute immunity.

'That Guy Is Protected'

Legal experts aired their views on whether the ICE officer was protected by absolute immunity following Vance's statement. The Vice President spoke with reporters a day after Renee Nicole Good's shooting and confidently said that the shooter, Jonathan Ross, would not be indicted.

'That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job,' Vance said.

The VP has been very outspoken in siding with the officer. He even shared footage taken by Ross's phone on X (formerly Twitter) captured just seconds before the shooting, deeming it as clear evidence that he was hit by the car and harassed by Good.

'The reality is that his life was endangered and he fired in self-defense,' Vance wrote.

However, the footage has received mixed opinions from the netizens. While many agreed with Vance that the officer was only trying to protect himself, several are adamant that it was a case of murder and shooting Good was unnecessary because there was no actual threat.

The investigation is still ongoing, and Ross hasn't been charged yet. Minnesota officials have jurisdiction and will determine whether charges are warranted.