JerryM

'Wrongful death' is a civil not criminal matter.

What trial? There will likely not be a criminal indictment as DoJ already claims "self-defense" and at a civil trial what he was 'feeling' would be irrelevant.

Yes and some have said that this would indicate that following the officer's JUN2025 dragging by a fleeing car and his 2 days of testimony just last month to that incident that he feared he was going to die, that the officer should still be confined to a desk job and not out on the street.

Washington Post headline this morning: ICE tactics and training under scrutiny after Minneapolis shooting Many policing experts say officer who fired fatal shots may have placed himself at needless risk by standing in front of Renée Good’s car.

As I have noted other topic, this case is not likely to be a criminal case (i.e. the DOJ has already said this was self-defense against a weaponized vehicle) this is more like to be a civil case where there would be issues of federal employee immunity. The response to claims of federal immunity are addressed in Supreme Court decision: via AI Gemini: In a civil trial in federal court, the liability of a federal officer is often determined using an objective "reasonable person" standard. This standard is primarily applied in the context of the legal defense of qualified immunity. The standard is purely objective; the official's subjective intent or belief is not the primary factor. The court asks: Would a reasonable official in the same circumstances have known that their conduct violated that clearly established right?

Maybe not a criminal trial but there could be a wrongful death civil trial including the supervision that allowed J. Ross to remain active duty.

Whether it is the end of the story in any criminal sense or not, the next story may start with a wrongful death civil action. Such action could be based not on the decision of the shooter, but based on the decision of his superiors including DHS Sec. Noem if it is established that this guy was still in PTSD / "unresolved fear" mode from a prior well documented incident and should have still been assigned to a desk job and not out on the street. _________________________ In his December (2025) court testimony, which spanned two days, Ross said he was afraid he was going to be pulled under the tire. “I was fearing for my life,” Ross told the court. “I knew I was going to get drug. And the fact I couldn’t get my arm out, I didn’t know how long I would be drugged. So I was kind of running with the vehicle.” Ross testified that he screamed at Muñoz to stop and fired 10 Taser rounds at him, the maximum number. “I did see the impacts on his face,” he said. But court records show the impact did not incapacitate Muñoz, who was arrested shortly after the incident. https://archive.ph/YjqMw#selection-599.0-619.255

Here's my argument (with help from VP JD Vance) Jonathan Ross was a PTSD or "unresolved fear" nut case and should be still on a desk job and not in the street following his "thought I was going to die" experience less than a year ago. “That very ICE officer nearly had his life ended … six months ago,” Vance said, referring to the earlier car-dragging incident. “You think maybe he’s a little bit sensitive about somebody ramming him?” https://archive.ph/XNM1T

ICE agent who fatally shot woman in Minneapolis was dragged by car in earlier incident The agent, Jonathan Ross, was injured last year by a fleeing driver during an arrest, according to court records. 09 JAN 2026 -- A law enforcement source, who is not authorized to speak publicly, confirmed that Ross is the shooter. (VP Vance) also defended the agent’s actions. “That very ICE officer nearly had his life ended … six months ago,” Vance said, referring to the earlier car-dragging incident. “You think maybe he’s a little bit * sensitive about somebody ramming him?” https://www.startribune.com/ice-agent-who-fatally-shot-woman-in-minneapolis-is-identified/601560214 *NB or maybe overly sensitive

Query to AI Gemini: Jonathan E. Ross was he so traumatized by prior car incident should not be active

I just posted the manual. Not interested in a debate.

REDUX this topic: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmt-dir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmt-dir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf

Live: ICE agent identified as state and federal officials clash over shooting investigation https://www.startribune.com/ice-raids-minnesota/601546426

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/mgmt/law-enforcement/mgmt-dir_044-05-department-policy-on-the-use-of-force.pdf

Deja vu all over again maybe: Trump calls Tillerson 'dumb as a rock' and 'lazy as hell' (2018) https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/07/trump-tillerson-dumb-lazy-1051485 Rex Tillerson was the former CEO of Exxon. Maybe Trump will see other big oil CEOs the same.

REDUX from Soapbox (and NewsMax):

Judge orders Lindsey Halligan to explain why she's still serving as US attorney after previous ruling against her 07JAN2026 NBC NEWS -- A federal judge Tuesday ordered Trump ally Lindsey Halligan to explain why she continues to call herself the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia even though another judge determined in November that she had been unlawfully appointed to the position. U.S. District Judge David Novak * of Richmond issued a three-page order demanding to know why Halligan is still serving in the post. Halligan, who unsuccessfully prosecuted former FBI Direct James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, is also referred to as U.S. attorney by the Justice Department in official documents. The judge's order is unusual because he issued it on his own, not at the request of defense attorneys. It came in a case involving a carjacking and attempted bank robbery suspect who was indicted last month. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/judge-orders-lindsey-halligan-to-explain-why-she-s-still-serving-as-us-attorney-after-previous-ruling-against-her/ *Trump appointee

Sure - the Avianca case being the most famous. But in these instances all the AI sentences have source links such as this one *. But most people on here I think would rather read of few sentences than source data. * The President’s actions also brazenly violate the United Nations Charter, a binding treaty which the U.S. has ratified and which prohibits the threat or use of military force against any nation except in self-defense or as authorized by the Security Council. The Trump administration’s claim that its Venezuelan operation was merely for the purpose of arresting Maduro to face charges initially brought in 2020 and augmented in a superseding indictment unsealed on January 3, 2026 must be seen for what it plainly was—a pretense to carry out an unlawful regime change in a foreign nation and to seize its principal natural resource for commercial or strategic advantage. . Under the United Nations Charter, a nation may not use force on the sovereign territory of another country without its consent, a valid claim of self-defense, or authorization by the United Nations Security Council.[4] None of those conditions are satisfied here. https://www.nycbar.org/press-releases/congress-must-act-to-halt-the-presidents-violations-of-u-s-and-international-law-in-venezuela NB And the query put to Gemini AI: can a presidential impeachment be based upon violation of international law

AI via Gemini: A presidential impeachment can be based on a violation of international law, but it is not because international law is "higher" than domestic law. Rather, it is because the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to define what constitutes "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." If a president violates a treaty or an international norm, Congress can argue that this act constitutes an abuse of power or a violation of the public trust, both of which are foundational grounds for impeachment. 1. International Law as "Law of the United States" Under the Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the U.S. Constitution, ratified treaties are considered "the supreme Law of the Land." Therefore, if a president violates a treaty—such as the UN Charter regarding the use of military force—they are technically violating U.S. law.

Venezuela BAD; Trump GOOD

As a mod posted about a year ago on one of this same author's topics: What happens here is just unimportant banter. You aren't changing the world, so don't get so worked up over it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/j6/ President Trump took decisive action to pardon January 6 defendants who were unfairly targeted, overcharged, and used as political examples. They were not protected by the leaders who failed them. They were punished to cover incompetence.