Milliseconds, Not Minutes: A Cop’s Lense on ICE and Use of Force

My first badge was pinned to my chest more than 30 years ago. I have accumulated more than 3,000 hours of formal police training, been involved in multiple use-of-force incidents, and investigated officer-involved shootings as a lead Homicide Sergeant with the Houston Police Department.

Over the course of my career, I have seen police shootings that based on the facts, the law, and the totality of circumstances, were clearly justified to those of us behind the badge, while at the same time the public felt justifiably outraged.

How do we reconcile these two very different perceptions?

The answer, I believe, is education—and piercing the wall that has grown between the public and those charged with protecting them. What does the law actually say in these situations? What guidance have the courts provided through decades of accepted case law? Does the United States government expect its peace officers to absorb the risk of imminent death without responding to protect themselves or others when they are operating within lawful authority and established legal frameworks?

I submit that the answer is a firm no.

So where does the disconnect come from? Why does legal reality so often diverge from perceived injustice? In many cases, the answer is political maneuvering layered on top of emotional storytelling.

Let’s walk through this together and allow the facts—and the law—to fall where they may.

As President Trump’s Operation Metro Surge ramps up immigration enforcement nationwide, Minneapolis has become a flashpoint. Two recent fatal shootings involving federal agents have sparked protests, national attention, and intense media scrutiny. The deaths of Renee Nicole Good on January 7 and Alex Jeffrey Pretti on January 24 ignited a broader debate over border security, law-enforcement authority, state and local resistance to federal enforcement, and self-defense.

Much of the public narrative has focused on the personal backgrounds of those killed—Good described as a mother of three and poet, Pretti as an ICU nurse. While those details are emotionally compelling, they are largely irrelevant under the legal framework governing use of force. That framework is what determines whether an action is lawful—not sympathy, hindsight, or politics.

U.S. self-defense law, applicable to civilians and federal agents alike—including ICE and Border Patrol—turns on the concept of reasonableness. The Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor (1989) requires that force be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, accounting for the severity of the crime, the immediacy of the threat, and any resistance or flight. This “objective reasonableness” standard explicitly rejects hindsight and acknowledges that officers must often make split-second decisions under extreme stress.

Similarly, Tennessee v. Garner (1985) limits deadly force to situations where there is probable cause to believe a suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to officers or others.

In the Good incident, available video shows her Honda Pilot stopped sideways in a snowy Minneapolis street, interfering with an active and lawful ICE enforcement operation. An agent approached the vehicle, grabbed the door handle, ordered her to stop, and demanded that she open the door. As the vehicle began moving in the direction of a federal agent, he fired through the windshield, striking her multiple times.

Officials have stated that the vehicle was “weaponized”—either as a deliberate attempt to strike an agent or through reckless disregard for the danger it posed. Under the law, officers are not required to divine intent or wait to be struck. Courts have long recognized vehicles as potential deadly weapons. When a vehicle accelerates or moves toward an officer, deadly force may be justified if a reasonable officer perceives an imminent threat. Scott v. Harris makes clear that such actions create a foreseeable lethal risk.

Pretti’s case arose during protests against the ICE surge. Video footage shows him filming agents, intervening after one pushed a protester, then being pepper-sprayed and tackled. During the ensuing struggle, agents can be heard shouting, “He’s got a gun!” Pretti was a lawful permit holder and had a holstered firearm with magazines on his person.

While some footage suggests the firearm may have been dislodged or removed before shots were fired—ten rounds in approximately five seconds—the legal analysis hinges on real-time perception, not post-incident reconstruction. In the microseconds preceding the shooting, officers were responding to a shouted warning of a gun, a chaotic physical struggle, and the unexpected discharge of a firearm less than a foot away.

Whether Pretti intended to use the weapon is legally irrelevant. The law asks what a reasonable officer perceived at that moment. It is also notable that the firearm involved—a Sig P320—has been the subject of ongoing scrutiny regarding unintended discharges, a factor that further complicates assumptions about control and intent.

Movements toward a waistband, resistance during a struggle, or the presence of a firearm in close quarters can rapidly escalate into a lethal threat.

In Kisela v. Hughes (2018), the Supreme Court reinforced that officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they act on perceived danger, even if later evidence suggests a mistake.

Intervening in lawful arrests—particularly while armed—can also constitute obstruction or assault under federal statutes such as 18 U.S.C. § 111. High-stress encounters magnify risk. Officers must make decisions amid incomplete information, rapid movement, crowd pressure, and physical resistance. These decisions occur in milliseconds, not minutes.

Public narratives often diverge sharply from this legal reality. Media coverage emphasizes personal identities while minimizing conduct—such as vehicle movement toward officers or armed interference. Emotional framing replaces legal analysis, fueling selective and often directed outrage.

Responsibility, under the law, lies with those who engage in high-risk behavior. Blocking enforcement operations or resisting while armed creates foreseeable danger. The legal system evaluates causation and reasonableness, not moral virtue or political alignment. Veteran agents rely on institutional knowledge, training, and established law—often clashing with activist interpretations driven by ideology rather than precedent.

Delegitimizing lawful authority for political purposes erodes public safety. Federal enforcement exists to address criminal violations amid an ongoing border crisis. Undermining that authority through selective outrage carries real consequences.

As Department of Justice reviews proceed, the rule of law demands restraint, facts, and fidelity to precedent—not frenzy. Minneapolis serves as a case study in the peril faced by law enforcement amid intense political polarization. Federal case law remains clear: reasonableness is the guardrail. Abandoning consistent legal standards in favor of selective accountability risks chaos. Upholding them ensures justice.

By John D. Shirley, Hood County Constable – Precinct 2