GIERACH BLOGS

by James E. Gierach

On Saturday, January 10, 2026, in broad daylight, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Good in her car as 2,000 federal agents, including ICE agents, descended upon Minneapolis and Minnesota to enforce immigration laws.

ICE agent Ross fired three bullets in rapid succession at the Good vehicle. The first bullet punched a hole in the front windshield on the drivers’s side. The second two bullets passed through the open driver’s window from a range of about one-foot from Good’s head and body as she sat in her vehicle diver’s seat.

Good’s State of Mind

Good spoke to agent Ross who would moment’s later shoot her. She spoke to him in a pleasant tone of voice but wished him a “bad day.” Shortly before the shooting Good was listening to music and “dancing” in her car driver’s seat as her car sat perpendicular to traffic lanes but not completely blocking travel in either direction.

Ross’ State of Mind

About six months earlier, agent Ross was hit and dragged by a car in the performance of his ICE duties. His injury required more than 50 stitches to close his wound. Immediate after shooting Good, Ross profanely referring to her as a “fing bitch.”

The American Immigration Environment

Agent Ross is part of the Trump Administration heightened immigration enforcement efforts that have created a hostile environment in Minneapolis and across the country. Commonly, protesters place themselves at significant risk standing in front of vehicles driven by federal agents, even as agents begin to drive forward into protesters. Likewise, federal agents place themselves at significant risk standing in front of vehicles driven by protesters, even as peaceful protesters try to leave the presence of threatening federal agents, armed with badges, authority, guns, handcuffs, pepper stray and assorted other weapons.

Immigration enforcement tactics have put states and municipalities at loggerheads with the federal government, the latter objecting to “sanctuary cities,” and state and local governments objecting to federal enforcement actions resembling those of “Nazi Brownshirts.” Angry politicians addressing the issue, including the president of the United States and governors, exchange dialogue using four-letter words on television and other mass media outlets.

Following this example, ICE agents exchange four-letter epithets with protesters on the streets of America during the performance of their duties.

Animosity, Violence and Lawlessness Increase

The bitter agitation is escalating making everyone less safe. Since the Good killing, Trump has increased federal agents in Minneapolis to 3,000, and Minneapolis experienced a second ICE shooting Wednesday. Trump Administration officials are defending agent Ross’s misconduct. Vice President Vance even suggested Ross is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution. And now the federal government has cut Minneapolis investigative and prosecutorial agencies out of the investigation of the Good killing.

Minnesota Must Act

A single criminal act committed by a law enforcement officer can constitute the basis for criminal prosecution pursuant to federal statutes, state statutes, or both. Investigations and prosecutions of both can proceed concurrently.

Ordinarily in a criminal investigation the grand jury is a useful tool to collect evidence, issue subpoenas, and fix the testimony of critical witnesses under oath. However, the federal government is doing an excellent job frustrating normal state proceedings in the Renee Good homicide, claiming this is a “federal matter” and cutting out the Hennepin Attorney’s Office (Minneapolis area), the office that handles charging decisions in the county, including felonies like murder. This exclusion of local investigative and prosecutorial agencies portends delay, a protracted federal investigation, and effective paralyzation of the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office and Minnesota justice in this matter.

Hennepin County Attorney’s Office Should Indict Now

The Hennepin County State’s Attorney’s Office should immediately take the following actions: (a) convene a state grand jury concerning the Renee Good homicide and and Jonathan Ross shooting of her, (b) subpoena all news media agencies, organizations and individuals possessing videotape of, or relating to, the Renee Good homicide, (c) subpoena every eyewitness to, and every participant in, the Ross shooting and killing of Good, (d) collect all scientific, ballistic, and laboratory reports, (e) collect the autopsy and forensic protocol regarding Good, (f) subpoena all federal reports, documents and records of all federal agencies involved in these matters and the investigations of these matters, and (g) otherwise investigate.

After collection of all the available facts, reports, records and testimony, the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office should seek the indictment of Jonathan Ross charging him with all applicable state charges, if any.

Time of the Essence

The prompt return of an indictment, or no bill, by a Hennepin grand jury is imperative to restore order and the confidence of the people of Minnesota and American in the rule of law, and the agencies charged with its pursuit. The message must go out, now, that the use of excessive force by federal agents will be promptly met with lawful action and accountability. Inaction or even delay here presents more opportunity for immediate and irreparable harm to the public at large than constrained immigration enforcement within the boundaries of the law.

James E. Gierach is a retired Illinois attorney, former Illinois Constitutional Convention delegate, and former Cook County, Illinois, assistant state’s attorney assigned to the Cook County Grand Jury Homicide Unit and Homicide Preliminary Hearing Court (Branch 66).

by James E. Gierach

The United Nations at present cannot effectively resolve major violent disputes or major humanitarian crises around the world. Changes must be made in the manner in which decisions regarding these matters are resolved by the United Nations, overriding a single nation’s self-interest and ability to frustrate reasonable resolution. Terms of the United Nations Charter, as presently written https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text, can obstruct peaceful and just resolution of these matters, and prevent enforcement of UN determinations and decisions.

What if, instead of a Security Council with each permanent member empowered by a unilateral veto, decisions regarding major violent disputes & major humanitarian crises were decided by an extraordinary majority vote of members of the Security Council? How extraordinarily great must a majority vote be to reach a decision? Two-thirds, three-quarters?

Either the framework of the United Nations decision-making ability shall be reworked and its decisions made enforceable with military might, the power of taxation, and exclusive right to possession of all weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and otherwise, or mankind is likely to eliminate itself.

Likely these thoughts are frightful to many minds and many nations, especially those nations and individual minds accustomed to possessing proportionately greater power, weaponry and wealth. Yet, the survivable choice must tame unsurvivable grand power and yet guard against minority access and deployment of weapons of mass destruction. But what of national sovereignty and individual rights under supermajority global peace and order? There must be a Bill of Rights for individual citizens and individual nations. There must also be an International Court of Justice, a branch of International Government empowered to adjudicate the rights of global interests versus the protected rights of nations and individuals. Complicated. How to resolve national boundary, national political power, and national governance disputes. Complicated age-old issues.

Because amplification and drafting of these precepts is so difficult, even agreeing as a committee of three — me, myself and I — let alone a committee of “experts” or plentipotentiary delegates from 186 nations or more, my suggestion is to experiment at the United Nations.

Straw UN Security Council Votes. Prospectively, let the Security Council continue its decision-making process as usual, but in a second straw vote protocol vote, put every vetoed Security Council matter to a Straw Vote and tally the straw vote outcomes using a three-quarters and two-thirds supermajority outcome vote. The data collected and experience might reassure Security Council Members and United Nations Members that survivability more hopefully lies in Super Majorities more than in Unilateral Vetos.

Venice, Florida