In recent weeks, the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by immigration enforcement agents in Minneapolis have left many Americans struggling to reconcile the circumstances under which the law justifies deadly force. President Donald Trump and members of his administration have muddled this discourse with sweeping and inaccurate statements of law, invoking a fundamental legal justification as a magic bullet for shootings involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection officers: self-defense.
Despite this rhetorical maneuvering, the law is clear. Based on what we know from the video at this time, the Good and Pretti shootings fall far short of the legal requirements for a viable self-defense claim in a potential future criminal trial.
The architecture of self-defense shelters people who have no other choice but to use force in order to protect themselves from truly terrifying situations.
While self-defense law varies by state and is based on how courts interpret real-life cases in their respective jurisdictions, there are certain principles that commonly apply, including in Minnesota. These principles justifying the use of deadly force dictate that: 1) the defensive action must be proportional to the threat; 2) the threat must be imminent (that is, occurring or about to occur in that present moment); and 3) the defensive actor’s fear of death or serious bodily injury must be reasonable.
A self-defense analysis of the Good and Pretti shootings fails each essential prong.
Even if one were to credit ICE’s story that Good was using her car as a weapon against the officer in question, multiple gunshots, including one to the head, are disproportionate to the threat of being clipped by a car. Not only could the ICE agent have shot Good’s tires and achieved equal (if not more effective) incapacitation, but he chose to shoot her in the most life-affirming part of the body. He chose to shoot her not once, not twice, but three times. Two of these shots were fired after the agent was already out of the purported zone of danger, representing a flagrant appropriation of force as a means of punishment rather than protection. No evidence weighs more strongly in favor of this point than the ICE agent’s apparent muttering of misogynistic expletives after shooting Good, which reflect a state of mind more preoccupied with vitriol than fear.
The officer’s second and third shots at Good not only undercut any proportionality argument from a future defense team, they also meaningfully interfere with the imminence requirement of a successful claim. The officer had no reason to believe that Good was armed with any weapon other than her car, yet he chose to continue shooting even after the initial shot.
In any future jury trial, testimony from witnesses about Good’s movements to leave prior to the shooting, social media video evidence of her wheels turning away as if to depart the scene, and possibly even her comment “I’m not mad” to the ICE officer would be considered as compelling evidence — cutting against a reasonable belief that she was driving toward him.
Officers’ claims of self-defense in the case of Pretti’s death, about two weeks after Good’s killing, are even less likely to succeed, despite Pretti’s lawful possession of a concealed handgun at the time. Most courts have held that the mere possession of a gun does not justify the use of deadly force, but rather allows for a detainment for further investigation. Not only was it facially unreasonable for shots to be fired against Pretti when video recordings show that he never brandished or even reached for his handgun, but further footage analysis revealed that what appears to be his gun was confiscated from Pretti before the shooting even began. At least 10 gunshots were fired.
Akin to the Good case, even if Pretti had been reaching for his weapon, 10 shots would have been disproportionate to the act of reaching for a gun, especially since Pretti was detained and pinned to the ground by officers before the shooting even began. Footage shows Pretti hunched over, hands on the ground, as Border Patrol officers surround him. His detainment undermines any argument that the officer had an imminent and reasonable fear when he began shooting. Notably, if the CBP officer who took the gun off Pretti’s person did not communicate this act to his fellow agents prior to the shooting (or anywhere in the midst of those 10 gunshots), he could become just as criminally culpable as the shooter through the concept of accomplice liability. Footage shows Pretti hunched over, hands on the ground, as Border Patrol officers surround him. Contrary to Vice President JD Vance’s initial claims (which he has since walked back), ICE officers do not have absolute immunity. They are also rarely protected by qualified immunity in the criminal sphere. Minnesota state and federal prosecutors recently won a temporary restraining order ordering ICE to preserve all evidence related to the Pretti shooting, signaling interest in a future prosecution. Notably, a Minnesota prosecution would have a stronger likelihood of success, given that state convictions can’t be superseded by a standard or pre-emptive federal pardon from Trump. The architecture of self-defense shelters people who have no other choice but to use force in order to protect themselves from truly terrifying situations. People of color in low-income communities who have no badge or presidential protection are rarely given the benefit of this justification, despite frequently having qualifying circumstances. ICE’s and CBP’s pilfering of self-defense theory is first of all an insult to the memories of a mother and a nurse whose families are mourning them tonight. But it is also an insult to the justice system at large.
Madeleine Lippey
Madeleine Lippey is a public defender, trial attorney and writer based in New York City. She is a graduate of Stanford and Georgetown Law and an advocate for reproductive, economic, racial and criminal justice. Opinions set forth in her articles are made in her individual capacity, not as an employee of any public defender office or agency. 
