Talk:Killing of Renée Good

Decision on criminal charges?

Has the decision whether to charge Jonathan Ross been made?

I'm seeing a lot of posts on Facebook saying Ross has been cleared of criminal charges. However, social media is generally an unreliable source, and all the news articles I could find are still saying the shooting is under investigation. Given that the Trump administration has tried to cover up for Ross, I think it's probable that the DoJ could quietly decide not to charge Ross without issuing a press release. But this shouldn't be mentioned in the article without at least one credible source. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Note that even if DoJ decides not to charge, the state still can. There is an (I believe ongoing) case where the state is trying to have the withholding of information by the FBI overturned. This might be easier to achieve if the FBI has or had declared no charges would be brought.

I'm not sure if there is a legal definition of "cleared of criminal charges" - especially if no charges have been brought. Otherwise "found not guilty" or perhaps "Case dismissed with prejudice" would qualify. "Charges dropped" is slightly different.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC).

Looks likes Snopes just confirmed it as fake news. Ixfd64 (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Renee Good and Ashli Babbit

The unsupported comparisons and the description of Good’s death as a “happy end” rise to the level of BLP violations Mikewem (talk) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is a better response to my failed and rather lazy attempt at explaining their similarities. I also researched a bit more into the information. I apologize before and did not mean any ill intent.

Im trying to be bias and add information that has been stated out there before.

Both woman’s deaths were tragic and have sparked topics of our government that are still relevant today. Their deaths have been polarizing for many and have sparked protests and called for change. Both woman have been demonized unfortunately by both sides. There is a happy end with Renee receiving overwhelming support and is remembered.

The statements of both being demonized (Particularly renee) have been stated in misleading comments of donald trump.

ButteyFelicity (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

"Im trying to be bias and add information that has been stated out there before." Humans can not be bias, they can only be biased. Dimadick (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Can you provide even one reliable source which actually draws this comparison, or is this your own original research? GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.newsweek.com/renee-nicole-good-killing-ice-ashli-babbitt-jan-6-11326844#:~:text=%22Ashli%20Babbitt%20was%20unarmed%20and%20stood%20in,stop%20command%20was%20ever%20given%20before%20Michael ButteyFelicity (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Newsweek itself is a reliable source, but all that (very short) article is doing is reporting that other people are making the comparison. And the other people quoted are not themselves reliable sources; the one you highlight is described as a 'MAGA influencer', and can't even spell Good's surname correctly. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.declassified.live/p/no-ashli-babbitt-treatment-for-renee

Spelling Renee’s name is a common mistake a believe. There has been reportings about Renee’s death compared to Ashli Babbitt and how there is double standard between the two. Same way with people comparing kyle rittenhouse with alex pretti.

https://www.declassified.live/p/no-ashli-babbitt-treatment-for-renee

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/26/style/alex-pretti-kyle-rittenhouse-online.html

Indeed, the federal government paid nearly $5 million to settle an FTCA case brought by the family of Ashli Babbitt, a woman killed by a Capitol Police officer on January 6, 2021 while storming the Capitol. ButteyFelicity (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That payment by the Trump Administration is highly controversial, and is not the only such controversial payment. It has no meaning here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@GenevieveDEon: Newsweek post-2013 is not generally reliable per WP:NEWSWEEK Mikewem (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/cannot-exonerate-ashli-babbitt-blame-183909549.html#:~:text=The%20operating%20framework%20is%20explicit,shifted%20with%20the%20political%20narrative. ButteyFelicity (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

That's syndicated from Mediaite, about which WP:PRS says There is some consensus that Mediaite is only marginally reliable, and should be avoided where better sources are available. Editors consider the source to inappropriately blur news and opinion, and due weight should be considered if no other reliable sources support a given statement. Come to that, Newsweek's entry on the same page says Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. In addition, as of April 2024, Newsweek has disclosed that they make use of AI assistance to write articles. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

oh got it. Sorry just wanted to show the double standard people have about Ashli compared to renee. ButteyFelicity (talk) 13:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for you to expose double standards or right great wrongs. We proceed on the basis of what's given relevant coverage in reliable sources, giving due weight to different elements, views and perspectives as necessary. As an aside, unless you knew either of these women personally, it's not generally considered good encyclopedic style to refer to them by their first names. One would normally refer to Ms Good and Ms Babbit. For my part, I believe that comparisons between the two cases are undue and tenuous; but that's not actually important for Wikipedia - what's important is whether reliable sources (ideally several that are independent of each other) make the claim in their own voices. So far, that's not proved here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes someone did it with Rittenhouse and Pretti how is that so different? Wouldn’t that be considered undue and tenuous and not important for wikipedia? ButteyFelicity (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

https://magnoliatribune.com/2026/01/13/renee-goods-death-may-have-been-legally-justifiable-its-still-tragic/ and here is another post. ButteyFelicity (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

According to an analysis in The Guardian..." or "Writing for The Guardian, Emma Brockes argues...” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/14/renee-good-shooting-dissent-fatal-trump-america

the guardian is considered a reliable source researching the Wikipedia guidelines. ButteyFelicity (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece, and states: Participating in a violent mob invading the seat of government isn’t the same thing as driving away from law enforcement. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

There is zero evidence of a double standard between Ms. Good and Ms. Babbit. They are totally different events. Indeed, I believe it is a WP:BLP violation to suggest they are similar. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Mind you there are numerous articles pointing this out. I read the rules and can confirm its not a violation. It only is, if its insulting or disrespectful Renèe Good since she is recent case to avoid more trauma for the family or unsourced rumors. None of which Im doing. Im referencing the articles that commentars of the case have compared it to Babbitts though critics argue the cases differ due to the circumstances. ButteyFelicity (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Suggesting it is a double standard to not treat these two the same is extremely disrespectful to Renèe Good. You are comparing her to a woman who was part of a mob of supporters of the outgoing president who stormed the United States Capitol seeking to overthrow an election in the first breach of the US Capitol since the War of 1812, injuring 140 law enforcement officers. This discussion needs to end. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Look, Wikipedia is not censored. The key question isn't whether or not it's respectful. The question is whether it's reliably sourced, relevant, and due. And I'm not convinced that it's any of those. I think it's an extremely tendentious theory that deliberately obfuscates the different circumstances of the two women's deaths. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

What you’re saying is original research and not having any references for the part of comparing the two and are taking my words out of context by saying the two should be treated the same, and you are just trying to start something. The other people replying to me have shown a suit of eloquence. You are not Wikipedia:Civility You are replying with strong emotions to the subject and not showing a neutral point and seem to have an outrage of what im discussing while the others have shown a level of neutrality .Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Im saying that commenters have said there are similarities between the two yet critics argue different. ButteyFelicity (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

No, I did not engage in OR. I copied from the Babbit article which is very well sourced. And in no way did I violate CIV; but calling my post emotional is. There is also nothing non-neutral about my comments. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2026

Change "Noem claimed, without evidence, that Good had been "stalking and impeding ICE all day"." to remove "claimed" and "without evidence". The source just says "said" https://web.archive.org/web/20260109225656/https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1jepdjy256o ~2026-24837-69 (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

There is no evidence in any cited sources that what Noem/other Trump administration officials/Trump himself stated were actually verifiable facts about Renée Good's life or about her death. All the evidence points to the conclusion that almost everything Noem + other Trump officials + Trump claimed about the killing and what they claimed about Good's life are without merit. The present sentence is according to editorial consensus. Also, per WP:PARAPHRASE, citing a source and its information means the article text is not allowed to exactly duplicate the source's text. - Shearonink (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The next sentence says Several Minnesota state officials, including Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and United States representative Ilhan Omar said that Good was acting as a legal observer of ICE's activities at the time of the incident.. Why doesn't it say Several Minnesota state officials, including Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and United States representative Ilhan Omar claimed without evidence that Good was acting as a legal observer of ICE's activities at the time of the incident. ~2026-17503-28 (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not potentially defamatory and this is a WP:BLP O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Which is why we should not add unsourced content such as "claimed without evidence". Stick to the source ~2026-17503-28 (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

There is also WP:CLAIM ~2026-17503-28 (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying someone was doing something criminal and someone was doing something not criminal. One can be defamatory and the other isn't. And the word "claim" is valid in this case as no evidence has been provided of an illegal act. Actually, I still don't think we have any evidence of a hospital visit or injury or any of the other government claims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It is not true that an allegation has to relate to illegal activity in order to be defamatory. However, the key point in my opinion is: is the unevidenced nature of the claims (in each case separately) itself attested and discussed in reliable sources? I'd be surprised if the government's claims, at least, weren't addressed in a range of sources, and it's likely that some of the other contested elements are too. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't have to relate to something illegal to be defamatory. But something illegal would be one of the activities that could be defamatory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

The reason there’s a difference between claiming someone broke a law and not claiming that someone broke a law is WP:BLPCRIME. Anyway, do we need to add this CNN source?:

In the Saturday post with the three-and-a-half-minute video, DHS claimed without providing evidence that Good was “stalking and impeding a law enforcement operation over the course of the morning.” Mikewem (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

We don't have to quote that source verbatim in the body text, but it's certainly a reliable source for the specific and relevant statement that the DHS report was presented without supporting evidence of its own. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Is “alleged, without evidence” better than “claimed, without evidence”? Mikewem (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

No. The word 'alleged' isn't some kind of legalese magic. Reliable sources say both that DHS made the claim, and that there was no evidence, either from DHS or otherwise, to support it. We follow what the reliable sources say, so we can (and IMHO should) say it. (And equally for anyone else's claims reported in similar terms by RS, to be clear.) GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• I have removed the phrase and replaced it with "said" as in the source. This shouldn't have been controversial, especially not with BLP concerns. If in doubt, stick to the source. StAnselm (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It was added here. It's not "according to editorial consensus" at all - it merely hadn't been challenged yet. It certainly wasn't discussed on the talk page. StAnselm (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

StAnselm do you have any questions about the CNN quote in this thread? Mikewem (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

It is important to note that "claimed without providing evidence" is very different to "claimed without evidence". In any case, we would need to be very sure that no evidence was provided later, and it's hard to demonstrate a negative, so a lot safer to stick with "said". StAnselm (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

‘Claimed without evidence’ has an identical meaning to ‘claimed without providing evidence’.

I oppose ‘said’ on WP:BLPCRIME grounds.

Here’s a link to the previous discussion on the sentence. Mikewem (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

If they don't provide evidence, what is the difference between "claimed without providing evidence" and "claimed without evidence". Either way we have no evidence. Seriously, it's like "I have evidence but I don't have to tell you". That kind of nonsense is seen thousands of times a day on the I'Net to justify anything from frogs making you gay to the Earth is flat. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Her claim was made without evidence accompanying it. That's what actually happened, it's what the CNN source says happened, and it's what we're saying. Please stop trying to twist the words to mean something they don't. Even if evidence was later produced to corroborate the claim (and I'm certainly not aware of any), the claim at the time was made without evidence to support it. If evidence were produced now, we would adapt our subsequent narrative to reflect that, but it wouldn't retrospectively mean that Noem produced any evidence. She did not. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2026 (2)

There is no ICE policy requiring body cams. ~2026-24786-01 (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2026

Create an addition to the end of the paragraph -

"Good drove her SUV slightly forward. At 09:36:58 a.m., a Ford Explorer entered Portland Avenue, Good waved, apparently to indicate that the Ford should pass in front of her SUV, which it did, along with another vehicle.[1][55] Meanwhile, Ross returned to the right side of Good's SUV and switched his phone from his right hand to his left hand[31] while Becca said: "You wanna come at us? You wanna come at us? I say go get yourself some lunch, big boy." As Good continued waving, a Nissan Titan stopped to the left side of her SUV and two more ICE agents stepped out.[1][54][56]""

- to include the fact that Renee Good told the ICE agents to "Go around" her car as she can be heard saying that twice in the video filmed by Caitlin Callenson at around 0:04 and 0:07 seconds - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9CJY5p0xz4 - right as the agents step out of their vehicle. Czmrl (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Day Creature (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2026

Change “her vehicle passed him, turning away from him.” to “it pushed or hit the officer. After which the car passed by him and he fired.” This is a much more accurate description and no body now debates that the officer was hit. Also add a line talking about why she was fleeing. “She fled because she was being arrested for impeding federal law enforcement” gives context to why she was shot. ~2026-25803-60 (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Mikewem (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

How can you claim she was "fleeing" when she was ordered to leave? Remember this is a WP:BLP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Alledged reports of ICE Watch Group.

There have been alleged sources of Good Being part of an Ice Watch Group. Not just from Fox News Reporting it, but CNN, Labornotes, and the Washington Post all three considered reliable sources. https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/13/us/renee-good-minneapolis-ice-monitoring-school-invs

https://labornotes.org/2026/01/renee-good-killed-ice-was-standing-solidarity-her-neighbors#:~:text=The%2037%2Dyear%2Dold%20Renee,you%20see%20an%20ICE%20agent.%E2%80%9D

https://labornotes.org/2026/01/renee-good-killed-ice-was-standing-solidarity-her-neighbors

Should it be mentioned as it can discern a possible reason why they were in the area as their are conflicting reports. ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

There* ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't know what LaborNotes is and it is not in the archives of RSN. It uses Fox news as a source, which is not RS. The CNN link says:

But four legal experts who reviewed the documents for CNN said they largely describe nonviolent civil disobedience tactics practiced at American protests for generations – far from the sinister depiction of extremism and domestic terrorism portrayed by Trump administration officials like Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Vice President JD Vance.

“There’s nothing in there that suggests attacking ICE agents or engaging in any other form of physical harm or property damage,” said Timothy Zick, a professor at William and Mary Law School who wrote a book on protest law. “This is authoritarianism 101 where you blame the dissenters and the activists for causing their own death.”

This is not how you presented any of this and doesn't actually say she was a part of anything. It only states that the school her child was in warned parents of the situation. . O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thats not who I was presenting it at all. I said reports Claim not she was. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/renee-good-jonathan-ross-ice-watch-minneapolis-b2897677.html

There are multiple claims of this. If possible it could be in an “allegations” section. Im not attacking or defending anything. There’s just many conflicting sources and claims of this. Labornotes is an activist news group that’s generally considered reliable and even had criticism with calling out the conservative papers saying she was a domestic terrorist. ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

All of these suggest that it’s possible she was doing some ICE watching, but none of them say that she was a member of any formal “ICE Watch” group Mikewem (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Either way, the point you’re seeking to add is already covered by the sentence in our article: Several Minnesota state officials, including Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison and United States representativeIlhan Omar said that Good was acting as a legal observer of ICE's activities at the time of the incident. Mikewem (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

There may be room to add something about school board materials after that sentence, but please don’t take that as an invitation to add it without workshopping it with input from other editors on the talk page Mikewem (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I’ve tried it before and just decide to do it since usually they would overwhelm me and sometimes got emotional towards my suggestions. Not saying they’ll all like that but the other part would give good constructive criticism. ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:32, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

But what about the reports of a friend allegedly saying she was “ICE watch Warrior”? That says something there. ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

If you think that, consider stepping away from WP:BLPs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Possibly. It kinda does seem Ideological bias on Wikipedia here. Im just sticking to my criteria crime. They have been so rude to me. Not you. I understand your doing. But they fight me tooth and nail. ButteyFelicity (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, it's the opposite of Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Such bias is extremely common in innumerable sources. This article is both political and a BLP. Wikipedia is extremely careful in such and looks at sources of sources. As far as our article Ideological bias on Wikipedia, that shows the openness of Wikipedia to criticize itself and make certain that we stick to our ideals. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I can see how that might appear to be notable, but it’s anonymous, and it still doesn’t claim that she was a member of any group. And I would have to double check the many sources you’ve provided, but I’m pretty sure that quote is sourced to Fox/NYPost reporting, which means that it’s not reliable, even if it’s re-printed by some other normally reliable publisher. Mikewem (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2026

Article needs to include that she struck the agent with her vehicle to be accurate to the events that occured. EssGee76 (talk) 04:10, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:21, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

She was there 3 minutes before the incident.

CNN retrieved video It appears it looks like the incident was an instant, but there should be information stating that she was there with her wife 3 minutes before the incident. It incorrectly says it was a minute.

https://www.wesh.com/article/dhs-video-minutes-before-ice-shooting-renee-good/69966509

https://nypost.com/2026/01/09/us-news/renee-nicole-good-appears-to-block-road-before-fatal-minneapolis-ice-shooting-video/

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/08/us/video/minnesota-shooting-ice-video-before-shooting-digvid https://www.wesh.com/article/dhs-video-minutes-before-ice-shooting-renee-good/69966509

ButteyFelicity (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I know the thing yeah with what happened before, but this one bugs me. I just wanted to talk before so no argument. ButteyFelicity (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is completely useless for an encyclopedia. All that it shows is that she was not blocking anything as vehicles were passing. But we cannot use that without RS stating such. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Recent edits about Fed evidence being turned over to Minnesota judge

This edit removed text & sources about the decision today, May 6th, that the Federal Government has turned over evidence that has some standing re:the death & killing of Renée Good, including the following, which is all an absolute direct quote from the KSTP article:

• Any statements made by Ross in the 60 minutes before the shooting of Renee Good
• Any statements made by Ross from Jan. 7 through May 1 regarding the investigation into Good’s shooting
• Any statements from Jan. 7 through May 1 made by any federal officer or employee who witnessed or was involved in Good’s shooting
• Any statements from Jan. 7 through May 1 made by anyone other than federal officers and employees who witnessed Good’s shooting
• Copies of Ross’s medical examinations, including breath tests, blood tests or other drug tests related to Good’s shooting

I have re-instated the sources and the info, slightly adjusting some of the wording. If editors disagree with my revert, let's discuss. - Shearonink (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Phew thank you. I added it cause they just released the info. Don’t know why it was removed since it was stated to be released. ButteyFelicity (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2026 (UTC)