What We Actually Know — and Don’t Know — About the Death of Renee Good
The death of Renee Good has ignited a familiar firestorm on social media. Self-appointed “use of force experts” have flooded timelines with absolute conclusions—declaring either that law enforcement acted lawfully or that this was a cold-blooded murder. I have read arguments on both sides. Some emphasize her alleged last words and claim she was retreating, lacked malicious intent, and was attempting to leave. Others argue she attempted to run over an ICE officer and that deadly force was justified as self-defense.
Opinions have come from current and former law enforcement officers, attorneys, and countless individuals with no training or legal background at all. The question being asked repeatedly is simple: Was Officer Jonathan Ross just doing his job, or is he a murderer?
The honest answer is this: I don’t know—and neither does anyone else.
I’ve seen repeated attempts to apply Graham v. Connor, often without a real understanding of the standard or how it is properly applied. Graham instructs courts to evaluate several factors when reviewing use of force:
- the severity of the crime at issue,
- whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to officers or others,
- and whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
Post-Graham litigation has expanded the objective factors investigators consider, including the number of officers versus suspects; relative size, age, and condition of those involved; duration of the encounter; whether officers had prior knowledge of a suspect’s history; the presence of innocent bystanders; and environmental factors such as time of day.
The key takeaway is this: the standard is objective reasonableness—not what an officer subjectively believed, intended, or felt in the moment.
Before Graham, the Supreme Court addressed deadly force in Tennessee v. Garner, identifying three circumstances where deadly force may be constitutionally permissible:
(1) when an officer is threatened with a deadly weapon;
(2) when the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm or death; or
(3) when the suspect has committed a crime involving threatened or actual serious physical harm.
Assuming—for the sake of argument—that one of those thresholds could apply here, the analysis does not end there. That assumption merely opens the door to Graham’s objective-reasonableness inquiry, and that is where the debate becomes far less certain.
Let’s walk through the Graham factors as applied to the publicly available information.
First, the severity of the offense. Blocking a roadway, impeding traffic, and failing to comply with commands are traffic violations or misdemeanors at most. This factor weighs against the use of deadly force—a step many online commentators skip entirely.
Second, whether there was an immediate threat. Reasonable minds could differ. Importantly, the standard is immediate, not imminent. For purposes of analysis, I will concede that an argument could be made either way.
Third, whether the subject was actively resisting or attempting to flee. Again, this could reasonably be argued on both sides.
Now consider the additional objective factors. There were at least three officers and two subjects in the immediate area. The officers were male; the subjects female. There is no indication the officers had prior knowledge of either subject. The incident occurred in broad daylight, in a residential neighborhood, with innocent bystanders present. Critically, the other officers in close proximity did not unholster their weapons.
That matters—not because unanimity is required, but because courts often ask whether a similarly trained officer, facing the same circumstances, would have acted in the same way.
Video evidence complicates matters, but it does not resolve them. As I discussed in last week’s post, anyone claiming a single camera angle definitively proves or disproves reasonableness has likely never attended a legitimate use-of-force course. Camera footage is inherently limited, and investigators are trained to evaluate it cautiously—not conclusively.
So where does that leave us?
With uncertainty.
This is a close call. It is not open-and-shut. It is not obvious. And it is certainly not as simple as social media makes it seem. Based on the information currently available, I believe investigators and courts could reach either conclusion—and at present, no one has enough information to declare this shooting lawful or unlawful with confidence.
Public speculation, particularly when uninformed, does more harm than good. It erodes trust, undermines legitimate law-enforcement interests, and distorts the legal standards that actually govern these cases.
In closing, citizens who choose to protest should do so lawfully. Blocking roadways, impeding traffic, or interfering with law-enforcement operations—regardless of personal agreement or disagreement—invites unnecessary risk. Legal disputes belong in courtrooms, not standoffs.
Law enforcement officers, for their part, should continually review their agency use-of-force policies and remain current on applicable case law in their jurisdictions.
This matter remains under active investigation, and no final determination has been made regarding the officer’s actions. Nothing in this post should be read as an opinion that the use of force was justified or unjustified. At this stage, the only accurate conclusion is that the case is unresolved, and any definitive judgment—either condemning or exonerating the officer—is premature.
Some information in this post is informed by materials from the Georgia Public Safety Training Center (GPSTC) Police Use of Force Investigations Manual. I completed the GPSTC 32-hour Use of Force Investigations course in Hahira, Georgia, in July 2024.
Disclaimer: This post is intended for general educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice, nor does it reflect any conclusion regarding the legality, propriety, or reasonableness of the use of force involved in this incident. The analysis herein is based solely on publicly available information as of the date of publication, which is incomplete and subject to change as investigations continue.
Hayden Glass Sizemore 