Thomas Hernandez
Photo Editor
Over the past year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has grown increasingly emboldened to operate in a more militarized manner. Agents, outfitted in tactical gear typically reserved for the military, conduct raids on an almost daily basis in areas designated by the Trump Administration as hotspots of criminal immigrant activity. Many people disagree with the federal government’s handling of immigration and have protested ICE’s presence and actions in cities across the United States.
Encounters between agents and protesters are often chaotic, resulting in injuries and, at times, death. Although policies exist to limit the use of force when ICE agents encounter potential threats, questions remain as to whether these measures are sufficient. Given the equipment ICE has access to and how it is employed, the agency should be subject to the same use-of-force policies that govern members of the armed forces, which operate under more stringent criteria.
The rules governing the handling and use of weapons are drilled into the being of every service member. Any violation of these rules is met swiftly and severely under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, often through non-judicial punishment. It is not uncommon for a servicemember to forfeit half of their pay for a duration of time, be reduced in rank, or receive additional duties and mandatory training.
Of these punishments, none is more lasting than the shame of being charged, which often leads to ridicule from others, loss of trust to work independently, and a lower chance of being selected for awards or specialized training that is crucial to one’s career. Weapon handling is treated as an extremely serious responsibility, and the threat of harsh punishment leaves no margin for error. I am very familiar with these policies as a former member of the armed forces. During my time in the U.S. Navy, one event stands out in stark contrast to the conduct of ICE.
It was a relatively normal workday aboard a U.S. Navy destroyer in Japan when a voice boomed over the ship’s PA system announcing that a single 9 mm round had gone missing. The cacophony of music from portable speakers and the clang of metal work came to a grinding halt. Anxious laughter rippled among the sailors, all of whom understood that whoever had misplaced the round would likely face severe punishment.
Moments later, instructions were issued for personnel to search the ship from top to bottom until the missing round was recovered. In less than five minutes, it was returned to the armory. A collective sigh of relief washed over the crew, as the prospect of an indefinite search had been avoided. Hearsay later revealed that a sailor tasked with maintaining ship security had been mishandling the pistol and magazine issued to them in a closet-like space near their post and had accidentally dropped a round. Only through the diligence and meticulous recordkeeping of that day’s Master-at-Arms was the round identified as missing and subsequently recovered, and the responsible individual was subjected to NJP.
The search for a single round was treated as a situation of crucial importance with the use of force by a service member held in even higher regard.
The same could not be said when an ICE agent used force during an interaction with Renee Nicole Macklin Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 8. Based on videos shared on social media, there was no apparent justification for an ICE officer to fire at a civilian inside a moving vehicle.
ICE operates under the Department of Homeland Security, which establishes clear policies governing the use of force. DHS policy states that an officer “may use deadly force only when the LEO (law enforcement officer) has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person.” DHS further specifies that when a subject attempts to flee in a vehicle, “deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject, unless the officer reasonably believes the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm and that such force is necessary to prevent escape.”
Jonathan Ross, a National Guard veteran, was the ICE agent who fired three shots at Good, resulting in her death. His actions appear to violate not only DHS use-of-force policy but also the training many service members receive when deadly force is authorized.
In the Navy, for example, deadly force may be used only when a subject has the means, opportunity and intent to cause death or serious harm. All three criteria must be met, with intent the most difficult to establish, before deadly force is authorized. In the interaction between Ross and Good, it could be argued that she had the means and opportunity to cause harm, but, based on available videos posted to social media, she appeared to be attempting to flee the scene rather than use her vehicle as a weapon. Based upon the actions and messaging by ICE and DHS, the use of force against a citizen has not been given the same level of importance as a lost round in the military.
We also relied on a use-of-force continuum in the Navy, which outlines the appropriate actions or tools to employ during encounters with potential threats. This continuum ranged from the mere presence of a service member to verbal commands, with the use of a firearm reserved as a last resort. It emphasized reciprocal force, that the level of force used should correspond to the level of force presented by a subject.
In the incident involving Ross and Good, it is my view that he clearly employed excessive force to stop what he believed to be a threat. Multiple ICE vehicles were present at the scene and could have been used to block Good’s escape or pursue her after the encounter rather than resorting to deadly force. Under the policies enacted by DHS and common military training, Ross should not have fired his weapon.
I propose that any agency or law enforcement organization that uses equipment like the military’s, be subjected to the Uniform Code of Military Justice or a similar subset of rules. The use of force should be equally scrutinized whether in the military, federal agency or police organization. The world came to a standstill for those onboard a Navy vessel when a single round of 9 mm was dropped. The same level of importance should be applied when an ICE agent uses deadly force against an American citizen.
Editor’s Note: This story was updated Jan. 16 at 4:54 p.m. to correct the spelling of a name.
