By Noah Rothman
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
It is every American’s God-granted constitutional right
to mouth off on the internet about events they do not understand and
circumstances they couldn’t possibly comprehend. But that doesn’t mean they
won’t humiliate themselves in the process.
According
to a breaking CBS News report, “The ICE agent who fatally shot Renee Good
on Jan. 7 in Minneapolis, Jonathan Ross, suffered internal bleeding to the
torso following the incident, according to two U.S. officials briefed on his
medical condition.”
But how could that be? After all, “Multiple videos taken
at the scene suggest Ross was in no danger,” American Community Media reported. That was not just
the general consensus among the uncredentialed forensic detectives who
populated the internet with definitive pronouncements on Agent Ross’s state of
mind during his fatal altercation with Renee Good but also the objective threat
he faced in that moment. That was elite consensus as well.
Ross “was clearly in no danger,” the author Joyce
Carol Oates presumed. “Renee Good was not a threat,” Representative Pramila
Jayapal declared, “and Trump’s ICE agent still killed her.” According to
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, Ross “walked away with a hop in his step” — not
only uninjured but unfazed by the fatal encounter. Indeed, many local and state
officials in Minnesota said that amateur footage of the confrontation
“demonstrate that Good was not a threat as she was turning away from the
agent,” the
BBC reported. And so on.
This revelation does not preclude the possibility that
the Department of Homeland Security’s protocols were not strictly observed during this fateful
conflict between federal law enforcement and semi-professional anti-ICE
protesters. There will be additional inquiries into this episode by the
relevant bodies — institutions that are equipped to collect and evaluate
evidence and render determinations informed by more than a subjective reading
of fragmentary details.
At the very least, CBS News’s scoop should demonstrate to
the progressives who so eagerly prejudged this case that it’s smarter to wait
until the facts are in before pronouncing a verdict — particularly one that is
liable to inflame passions and radicalize the impressionable. Perhaps a modicum
of prudence is too much to ask.
No comments:
Post a Comment