WHAT I SEE FROM WHERE I STAND

JANUARY 10, 2026 – One central lesson I learned from my periodic forays into litigation over 40-some years of practicing law is that there’s no such thing as the “open-and-shut” case. Even when a defendant you’re suing defaults, you still have to enforce the judgment in favor of your client against what is doubtless a “judgment-proof” defendant. Good luck with that. To the point, inevitably in more complex matters, even when you think you’ve got the other side dead to rights—or should I say, especially when you think you’ll crush your opponent—some fact, some angle, something comes to light that compels you to re-examine your assumptions or conclusions.

So it is with many facets of life. You think you’ve hit the bull’s eye in forming an opinion or reaching a conclusion, only to learn that you didn’t have the whole picture or an accurate grasp of one critical factor or another. Since it’s impossible to know all the material facts about all matters about which you form opinions, often you must go with your gut, your instincts. Habitually, you tend to rely heavily on the gauges of your worldview.

Some things, however, are so clear that as a matter of the principles by which you conduct your life, you can’t avoid committing to a conclusion unequivocally. An example would be the unqualified condemnation of a vandal’s breaking into your home and with a pail of hot tar and brush, writing all-cap expletives across every wall and piece of furniture.

This week’s big news event in my neck of the woods—the shooting of Renée Good—counts as something that presents such a clear-cut moral and ethical choice, no person who subscribes to the rules of decency, let alone the Rule of Law, can say even “Yeah, but . . .” with the slightest sliver of credibility.

Let me distinguish, for a moment, the difference between (a) the hypothetical criminal case against the perpetrator, ICEman Jonathan Ross (and others, potentially), and (b) the real life moral and ethical case against not only Ross and other ICE agents, but everyone up the chain of command to the president himself.

Because we are still in theory, at least, a society governed by the Rule of Law, one sacrosanct Constitutionally protected precept is that no one, no matter how mean, nasty and otherwise detestable, may be deprived of life, liberty or property, without substantive and procedural due process. Accordingly, the Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rules of Evidence applicable in any criminal prosecution, must be strictly observed. At the conceptual core of this process is the presumption of innocence afforded every single criminal defendant—no exceptions. In other words, the prosecution—state or federal, as the case may be—must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as determined by a jury of the defendant’s peers. Proof meeting that standard, in turn, requires legally admissible evidence; not “he said, she saw” (hearsay); not video or audio recordings without proving a “chain of custody” that eliminates the possibility that they’ve been doctored; not documentary evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search and seizure. Moreover, the evidentiary proof (to the highest standard in American jurisprudence—“beyond a reasonable doubt”) must pertain to each element of the crime(s) with which the defendant has been charged.

All of which is to say that under the Rule of Law, whether Mr. Ross the ICEman is “guilty” is impossible to say at this point. That very technical status depends on (a) the exact words of the criminal statutes under which charge(s) might one day be brought, (b) the evidence admitted at trial, and (c) a 12-person jury (in a felony case, anyway) unanimously finds that the evidence proves guilt of the stated charges—beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless you are schooled and experienced in criminal law and are privy to all the admissible evidence in the case at hand, your opinion about Mr. Ross’s guilt or innocence carries little weight. And in any event, you cannot read the minds of 12 jurors who have yet even to be identified, let alone empaneled.

But to us members of American society, the potential criminal case and its possible outcome are totally eclipsed by the moral and ethical case that confronts our nation.

This latter case is as “open and shut” as any of its kind since the confrontations of the Civil Rights Era in this country. The salient elements of the case (and the story behind it) are as follows:

1. The nation elects as president a man with grave personality disorders that include an extreme intolerance of any criticism, but particularly the kind of personal mockery that ironically is at the heart of his own political brand. A companion disorder is the visceral need to wreak personal vengeance and retribution against any such critic that laughs or impedes the president or otherwise gets under his skin.
2. Said president is ridiculed by a Democratic governor, namely Tim Walz of Minnesota. Consequently, the president declares a war of vengeance/retribution not only against the governor but constituencies of the governor’s party. This includes people dependent on federally funded day care facilities, people on food stamps, and voters with liberal views regarding undocumented immigrants, particularly children of such immigrants, but the children having birthright citizenship, and others who, in a prior era, would’ve been entitled to citizenship under DACA, which is now all but scrapped.[1]
3. To prosecute his personal vendetta, the president sends his goon squad—many of them participants in the January 6 assault on the Capitol Building and Congress itself. Unlike all other law enforcement officers, state or federal, these ill-trained, MAGA mercenaries are masked and not wearing any personal identification, yet are armed and dangerous.
4. After weeks of disrupting the normal course of life and commerce in our state, an ICEman shoots and kills a citizen present at the scene of an ICE operation.
5. Within one or two hours of the shooting, the Secretary of DHS tells us that while ICE agents were pushing a vehicle out of the snow, the victim “weaponized” her car and was going to ram the agents. In self-defense and defense of others, the ICEman shot the woman; he was injured in the fracas and taken to the hospital. She also tells us that his conduct was consistent with his training. All of this prima facie B.S. is adopted wholesale by everyone up and down the chain of command, and the propaganda arms of the Republican Party. In subsequent statements, the regime and its enablers/supporters demonize the victim, claiming she was a “domestic terrorist” and “leftwing agitator.”
6. In the aftermath of the tragedy, the world sees three videos: two taken by a bystander; one by the ICEman himself. And here are the most salient elements visible to a sighted person:
7. A dated Honda, engine running, is parked on the side of the street pointing toward the center. An ICE agent—in full enforcement garb—steps threateningly toward the driver’s door and reaches toward it. The driver/victim lowers her window and says (almost cheerily), “I’m not mad at you.” Her words and tone are those of a de-escalator, certainly not of anyone approaching the definition of a “terrorist.”
8. On the other side of the vehicle, meanwhile, is a woman whom we’re told is the wife of the victim. She has “a mouth,” and uses it, but in the scheme of things and under the circumstances, her comments are rather mild (e.g. “Have some lunch.”). In no way can they be interpreted as threatening the physical safety of the ICEman or anyone else.
9. Nowhere in any of the videos is there a vehicle “stuck in the snow,” let alone a contingent of ICE agents pushing a vehicle.
10. As the ICEman walks around the front of the Honda, we see through the windshield, the victim turning the steering wheel to her right—before the vehicle moves. We then see the vehicle begin to move—just barely. Next we see the shooter draw his weapon while he’s still filming with his camera.
11. We then hear all hell breaking loose and see the car hurtling down the street before crashing into a telephone pole. The victim/driver’s wife shrieks.
12. After the crash, we see the shooter walking—cool, calm and collected—way back up the street. He shows no sign of injury or being the least bit unsettled, mentally or physically, by what just occurred.
13. A bystander who claims to be a physician seeks access to the victim to administer first aid but is denied. None of the ICE agents attempts to treat the victim. An area is cordoned off, and by the time an ambulance arrives, the ICEmen require the emergency vehicle to park some distance away.
14. The world neither hears nor sees a single statement; not one word of remorse, regret, apology or even acknowledgment of tragedy (no matter how unapologetically conveyed) issued by the White House, anyone in the Administration, or any Republican. Public statements either demonize the victim, asserting (with positively zero evidence, even of the flimsiest form) that she was some kind of “leftwing, extremist, terrorist, [etc., etc.]”) and defend the shooter—as cold-blooded, cold-hearted, and unfeeling as he inescapably appears in that post-incident video.

Based on the foregoing record, in the moral and ethical case, all those responsible for the horrible incident that has upended our community, are guilty of depravity. Having violated all standards of decency, they are unworthy of the public trust. Salvation of their souls would require in part, their immediate resignations, from top to bottom. But by the record of their lives thus far, they are soulless and thus, beyond redemption.

Lest we despair, however, this afternoon Beth and I joined the impressive crowd of other demonstrators at the intersection of Lexington and Seventh in St. Paul. It was but one of many demonstrations across the Twin Cities today. Ironically, the sidewalks were covered with . . . real ice and snow and slippery as oiled banana peels; to render conditions even more challenging, an icy wind blew from the north. These factors didn’t discourage the intrepid demonstrators, however, who were dressed for the occasion. Their high spirits generated warmth, as did their chants: “Ho, ho, ho! Trump has got to go!”; “Renée Good. Say her name!”; and “No more ICE!” Motorists in heavy traffic along Seventh voiced their support by honking constantly. The general cacophony increased when a resident of the senior living community on the northeast corner of the intersection stepped out onto her balcony with a cooking pot in hand and crashed its cover repeatedly against the side. From a neighbor’s balcony was draped a sign that read, “SAVE DEMOCRACY.”

Nearly everyone present held a sign expressing unreserved disapproval of ICE and the Trump regime. Many of the signs played on a phrase familiar to all Minnesotans and associated with late spring when ice finally leaves our 10,000 lakes: “ICE OUT!”

Among the demonstrators we ran into Tim P., my former work colleague; a cordial, affable and mild-mannered family man (who loves winter) but also a zealous, tenacious and conscientious practitioner of the Rule of Law. He knows what’s at stake in the fight against ICE and the current regime. He said he participates in the weekly demonstrations on the Lake Street Bridge between Minneapolis and St. Paul—dressed in an inflatable frog costume and holding a big bright sign that reads, “FROGS AGAINST FASCISM!” He wasn’t wearing the frog costume today, and his big bright sign read, “NO KING!” When he had to leave for another engagement, he handed us his sign. When we hesitated, he insisted. “It’s fine,” he said. “I’ve got all kinds of protest signs at home.” (As we were leaving the demonstration, we, in turn handed the sign off to another couple—about our age—who were just arriving on the scene.)

No one in this crowd whom we observed, anyway, was a wild-eyed weapon wielding agitator who posed a threat to the safety of the community or anyone in it. In fact, given the proximity of the large senior complex near the heart of the demonstration, we saw many people well beyond traditional retirement age braving the elements to voice their opposition to ICE and Trump. All bundled up, many of these people were walking with canes, ski poles and walkers-on-wheels. I was impressed by their commitment to good citizenship. Younger members of the crowd practiced “Minnesota Nice” by assisting these old folks—even extending their courtesies to Beth, who, wary of falling on her already bruised ribs, walked very cautiously on the slick surfaces.

I saw no sign of any law enforcement, which was fine. No “security” was required. Despite all the noisemaking and signage, the crowd was remarkably orderly and well-behaved. The most obstreperous member of the entire crowd was a lanky guy surely no younger than 75, smartly attired in an orange down jacket and matching wool cap and cutting the image of a retired university professor. He seemed to be entirely on his own and was holding a small hand-crafted sign that read simply, “F_ _ _ ICE.” He said not a word as he mingled with the crowd, handing out charcoal-pellet handwarmers to anyone who needed them, which was nearly everyone. Only in Minnesota, I thought.

On our way back to the car, Beth and I expressed complete agreement: the demonstration was greatly affirming and gave us hope; a reminder that in this town live many people, surely a sizable majority, who see Trump’s war of retribution against Minnesota for what it is: heartless vengeance. The crowd, I thought, was representative of the “good people of this state,” while the ICE agents and the regime who deployed them, are the “not so good people.”

Just then I remembered the extraordinary symbolism of the name of the martyred victim: Renée GOOD. May it soon be said that she did not die in vain; that having lived a life of goodness, her tragic death was an inflection point in our nation’s path out of depravity and into an era of hope, dignity, decency and civic renewal.

Subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2026 by Eric Nilsson

[1] Lost in the stream of Administration propaganda, of course, are the adverse effects of this vengeance campaign on Republican constituencies, as well as Democratic ones: owners of construction firms (and the vendors and suppliers dependent on construction firms staying in operation), restaurant owners, the hospitality industry, and other business owners reliant on undocumented immigrant workers; also, business owners whose employees (and indeed, the owners themselves) dependent on day care services.