ICE ignores hard lessons LAPD learned after Rodney King beating

Scenes from Minneapolis raise deep questions about the limits of federal authority, the legality and purpose of immigration enforcement and the specter of masked agents harassing, manhandling and even killing Americans who dare to speak out against their actions. 

Whatever side you land on with those questions, one issue is beyond dispute: ICE is poorly staffed and badly led.

I say that from years of experience covering police misconduct and civilian oversight of law enforcement and seeing the hard-won lessons Los Angeles learned over the past few decades. 

The essential elements of the reforms that remade the Los Angeles Police Department have been conspicuously — perhaps deliberately — lost on federal authorities in their zeal to punish undocumented migrants. Such principles as de-escalation, accountability and commitment to protect and serve the public have all gone out the window. That’s a shame because it was those principles that guided the LAPD away from ignominy and back toward honor.

Take the encounter between ICE agent Jonathan Ross and Renee Nicole Good, a Minneapolis mother of three who had driven her son to school on January 7. Partisans have taken to interpreting the viral recordings of that fatal confrontation in ways favorable to their side, but some elements of the incident are not in dispute.

Ross circled around Good’s Honda Pilot SUV while filming on his cell phone (not his body camera, as some reports have suggested). His fellow agents approached from the driver’s side, cursing and demanding that Good get out of the vehicle. 

Good backed up, then turned the wheel and lurched forward. Ross fired three shots, one through the windshield, two through the open driver’s side window. 

In the aftermath, Vice President J.D. Vance and White House advisor Stephen Miller, along with other administration officials, sided with Ross and declared that he was protected by immunity for actions he took while on duty. 

Each of those steps and statements — none of which are contested — represents a failure of responsible law enforcement.

First, the approach to the SUV. Ross’ decision to film the episode himself on his cell phone is evidence that he did not consider the situation objectively dangerous — he felt comfortable recording it rather than bracing for a confrontation. 

Why, then, did he draw his weapon?

LAPD’s use of force policy anticipates that scenario, warning officers against brandishing weapons too soon. 

“Unnecessarily or prematurely drawing or exhibiting a firearm limits an officer’s alternatives in controlling a situation, creates unnecessary anxiety on the part of citizens, and may result in an unwarranted or accidental discharge of the firearm,” the policy notes. “Officers shall not draw or exhibit a firearm unless the circumstances surrounding the incident create a reasonable belief that it may be necessary to use the firearm.” 

The attempt to wrench open the door of Good’s vehicle, the rough language by the agents and Ross’s decision to draw his gun all escalated the situation rather than calming it down. Those are unsound police tactics.

When Good began to move her vehicle, Ross was standing in front of it — tactically stupid, if he were genuinely concerned about her fleeing. He and others have claimed that the SUV hit him, though videos seem to debunk that, and they definitively refute the claim that he was “run over.” 

In either event, his decision to shoot Good through the windshield and open window also defies smart police practice. 

Again, the LAPD’s guide in this area: “An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall move out of its path instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants,” the policy states. There is an exception; officers may be justified in shooting into a car if the driver is “immediately threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle.” But it emphasizes: “The moving vehicle itself shall not presumptively constitute a threat that justifies an officer’s use of deadly force.”

In this case, no one — not even Stephen Miller — has suggested that Good posed any threat other than with her vehicle. She was unarmed and even docile in her interactions with the agents. Agent Ross’ shots into the vehicle violated thoughtful guidelines on the use of his weapon.

Qualified immunity

Finally, immunity. Speaking to reporters two days after Ross killed Good, Vance said the agent had nothing to fear legally. “You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action — that’s a federal issue,” Vance said. “That guy is protected by absolute immunity.”

That is both false and unwise. It’s unwise because civilian authorities need to maintain oversight when it comes to managing law enforcement. No one — not conservatives nor liberals — wants armed agents or police who are not answerable to the law. That quickly descends, as Los Angeles learned in the 1990s, into riots and chaos. 

To the contrary, clear rules, backed up by scrutiny and accountability, allow police to do their work and the public to feel fairly treated, a situation good for public and officer safety. Sgt. Stacey Koon and Officer Laurence Powell enjoyed qualified immunity as Los Angeles police officers. Nevertheless, they went to prison for violating Rodney King’s civil rights, and Los Angeles was better for it.

So Vance is foolish to suggest that agents may act with impunity. He’s so wrong that agents may want to consider how willfully he is misleading them.

No statute of limitations

Ross may, for all practical purposes, be “immune” from federal prosecution, so long as lawless executives at Justice and Homeland Security — led, after all, by the cynical Pam Bondi and the laughably unqualified Kristi Noem — use their positions to prevent investigation and prosecution. 

But Ross killed a woman, and murder is often a state offense, not a federal crime. There is no statute of limitations for murder, so Ross is on the hook to Minnesota for the rest of his life for his actions that day.

No ICE agent thus far has been investigated for civil rights violations, much less prosecuted. But neither Vance nor Noem nor Donald Trump himself will be around to shield Ross and his colleagues forever. 

What Vance really is offering is protection — a concept more often associated with the Gambino family than federal law. And his protection is, at best, temporary.

The keys to responsible law enforcement operations are accountability, restraint, dedication to the public interest and thoughtful civilian oversight. Those are the lessons of 1980s and ‘90s Los Angeles, lessons the federal government today is deliberately choosing to ignore. 

Anyone who lived through those years in LA can predict what happens next. Hint: It isn’t good.