A Border Patrol supervisor weighs in on the Good shooting.
The analyses by these veteran use of force experts/law enforcers are extremely educational and interesting. Please read. (I took out his years of service to preserve his anonymity.)
Jessica,
I’ve taken the liberty of banging out a few posts over the last few days on my personal, private FB page. I’m a xx year veteran federal agent with USBP, xx years as a supervisor, almost x as an investigator dealing primarily with critical incidents, predominantly uses of force and assaults, and a peppering of other years as a defensive tactics instructor and active shooter response instructor. I have been in the busiest places on the border—xx years in Tucson Sector, xx years in Rio Grande Valley Sector.
Please excuse the length—I tend to get occasionally verbose.
I’ve seen a bunch of people opining about the ICE shooting and woefully misunderstanding what happens during a critical incident and how such an action against an “unarmed” woman could possibly be justified. I took a few minutes and put my thoughts, incomplete though they and the investigation might yet be, and have rendered them thus, here for your perusal. Feel free to take to use them how you will.
I have been wondering of the myriads holding forth on the shooting how much experience do any of them have with shooting investigation? Police work? Human performance under the stress of a critical incident? Uses of force? I’m going to venture a guess of the vast majority of them and say, “Not that much, if any.” Granted, I could be wrong in some cases, but thankfully, I have an entire career behind me doing just such things. Such are my thoughts and suppositions about the incident, for whatever they’re worth.
While approaching a vehicle from the front isn’t the most tactically sound or safe method, sometimes it’s a necessary evil, as might well have been the case here with the subject having parked astride the lanes of traffic. It also wasn’t until the last moment that she shifted into reverse, then drive, and so the agents slower approach from the driver’s side and opposite side of the vehicle to deal with the driver who’s chosen to impede, interfere, and harass with a lawful, legal enforcement operation.
When she shifted into reverse and began moving the vehicle, the shooting agent noted this and reacted by drawing his sidearm, likely fearing that she had just turned her vehicle into a potentially deadly weapon or device with which she could attempt to evade capture. The driver then shifted into drive and began moving her vehicle forward, at which point the agent, who had been dragged by another vehicle not six or seven months previous during another enforcement operation, made the decision to shoot to stop the driver’s actions that in his training and estimation, education and experience had engaged in conduct dangerous enough to warrant a deadly force response. He began shooting and discharged what appears to be three rounds from his weapon. Video that I’ve seen from a different angle shows that he WAS struck by the vehicle as he simultaneously fired and moved to get himself out of the way. At least one of the shots struck and ended the life of the driver.
The decision to shoot does not occur in a vacuum and is NOT instantaneous. Research shows us that it takes time to observe the world around us and the situations in which we find ourselves, orient ourselves to that information, decide upon a course of action to take, then perform that action or actions. Depending on the novelty of the situation presented, the time that takes can vary, newer situations taking longer to process, understand, and formulate action to address. As the agent had already experienced a similar threat, it seems that he had the mental framework established that allowed him to react quicker than many if not most others. He was able to draw, fire, and move himself at least mostly out of the path of the vehicle lurching into motion.
Just as it takes time to decide to act and perform that action, it similarly takes time to process the result of what we’ve done and eventually cease that action. The agent must literally override the reaction trained into him by hundreds, if not thousands of hours on the range, and force himself to cease fire. This also takes time, hence the second and third shots that may have entered through the open driver’s side window, the first shot already having gone through the windshield at what appears at first blush to have been a virtually perpendicular angle, indicating his positioning at the front of the SUV.
His actions, so far as I can tell from all I’ve seen of what’s publicly available, were, in my mind and the minds of what I could safely assume to be the vast majority of law enforcement professionals, justified. This is, of course, without having spoken to and debriefed the agent to obtain his explanation and justification for the use of deadly force. It’s also operating under a number of what I believe to be a few safe assumptions about his previous experience and training, as well as my own. I’ll concede that there could exist other evidence a full investigation into the matter might produce that could change my mind, but I cannot fathom what that could possibly be.
This I picked at over the last couple days and finished up today:
As the days drag on in the wake of the ICE shooting that has so spun people up, I feel the need to continue to attempt to address each and every one of the ludicrous claims to hit the internet, one…after another…after another…after another. Ad nauseam. Ad infinitum. I’ll try to address the ones foremost in my mind and add on as I see ever newer and more befuddling ones…God help me.
“The ICE agent was in front of her car! He put himself in peril and DHS policy states that he can’t be there!”
Incorrect on a number of counts. There is no policy that prohibits agents from walking in front of or behind a car or within the possible turning radius of a vehicle. Such a prohibitive policy would essentially make the job unworkable. While it’s recommended for agents to be mindful of their placement and positioning regarding vehicles and during encounters with subjects in vehicles, sometimes the situation dictates that an agent walk into close proximity to affect an arrest, move to a more advantageous position, or for any number of possible reasons.
With regard to this one, the agents had been dealing with the Good couple for some time that morning and her vehicle had been parked astride the lanes of traffic impeding ICE activities for at least a few minutes before the assault and shooting. The driver had stopped her vehicle, shifted into park, and sat there, baiting an interaction. The agent exited his own vehicle, walked completely around the Good vehicle and filmed the incident, likely documenting the encounter for evidentiary purposes. Though on guard and wary, no weapons were drawn at this point. Even during the Good passenger’s vulgar and belligerent tirade against the agent his weapon remained holstered and his demeanor professional. It was not until the shooting agent’s partner reached the driver’s side and ordered Good from the vehicle that the agent began to move again toward the driver’s side to assist, if necessary. As he moved, Good shifted the vehicle into reverse, backed a short distance, then shifted into drive as the agent was directly in front of the driver on the left front side of the vehicle.
Good then accelerated the vehicle forward and in the direction of the agent. By this point, the agent had noted the movement and drew his weapon, anticipating its possible need. As she drove toward him, the agent fired a round through the windshield and another two through the open driver’s side window.
I also see a whole bunch of comments prattling on about how Mrs. Good’s INTENT was not to assault the agent, and that her INTENT was to leave.
Let me clear this up: her unstated intent is utterly irrelevant to the agent’s actions. Her intent to flee while perhaps not intending to injure the agent doesn’t preclude the fact that she did so with reckless disregard for the agent’s safety (and that of her wife, while we’re at it). To put it simply, the agent is not required to try to parse her intent in real time over the course of split seconds. Officers are allowed the latitude to make what are potentially imperfect or even incorrect decisions under circumstances that are “tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”
Feel free to read the Graham v. Connor Supreme Court ruling—the paragon of use of force cases against which every one from coast to coast, Alaska to Hawaii is tested. When you do, you’ll very quickly realize that the agent will be cleared of any wrongdoing and that no criminal case would be reasonable or even possible. Even Minnesota state statute signed into law by Tim Walz in 2020 is on his side, stating in essence that if a driver accelerates their vehicle at a law enforcement officer, deadly force is permissible.
“ICE has no jurisdiction over American citizens and aren’t REALLY police. Good didn’t have to obey their orders!”
Wrong. Absurdly wrong. Preposterously wrong. ICE agents are law enforcement officers. When she and her wife decided to identify, follow, harass, impede and obstruct a lawful, targeted law enforcement operation, they became amenable to a probable cause arrest under 8 USC 111, Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding Certain (Federal) Officers or Employees. She wasn’t, however, shot for impeding. She was shot when she decided to attempt to flee and in that attempt she used her vehicle as a device to facilitate that flight—and here’s the key point—in reckless disregard of the safety of the agent in front of her vehicle AS WELL AS that of her wife, who was standing in dangerously close proximity to the vehicle as she attempted to abscond. Mrs. Good then became guilty of the assaulting verbiage in the statute, with the aggravating factor of using a deadly weapon to aid her crime. Her citizenship and her intent were irrelevant.
“The agent used excessive force when he shot her three times! He should’ve stopped as soon as he was no longer in danger!”
Now we’re getting into more nuanced territory as it relates to uses of force. When uses of force are investigated and inspected, each individual use of force is looked at individually. What will be closely scrutinized is the total amount of time that it took for the agent to reasonably be expected to have observed any potential and ongoing threat, orient himself to that information and understand it, decide upon a course of action or actions, perform that action, then repeat that OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act; rinse, repeat) throughout the encounter. Something most people know nothing about and even few law enforcement officers don’t understand fully themselves is that, while it takes time to decide to do anything it ALSO takes time to decide when to stop performing an action. This is especially true of an action that has been honed to the point of a reflex—in this case, law enforcement self defense shooting. I haven’t done a deep dive on how long it took for all of this to go down the other day, but I’m willing to wager any sum of money that investigators are agonizing frame by frame over that very thing in every bit of video footage recorded. By my estimation, the agent drew, aimed, and fired what appears to be three shots within 2-3 seconds. And to complicate matters is that he was using his non-dominant (non-gun) hand to film with a cell phone and physically moving himself toward the driver’s side of the vehicle as he observed Mrs. Good.
The Force Science Institute has done some superb research on perception/reaction times in both law enforcement professionals and laypeople. Though some of us in law enforcement are good in a lot of cases, even approaching superhuman in others, we’re still bound by the laws of physics, time, and biology. We’re not robots and can only process things at a certain, finite rate. Under stress that perception/reaction response time is further degraded.
Ultimately, I feel very, very confident that a thorough, impartial review of the evidence will show that the agent’s actions were eminently reasonable, considering the circumstances and under the stringent scrutiny of the Graham v. Connor tests.
I’m sure there’ll be other things that come up. If y’all have any questions, arguments, or concerns, please hit me up! I’ll do my best for ya…
My opinions are my own and are not officially sanctioned or approved by DHS, CBP, or the USBP.
