For years, well-publicized examples of police failing to hold officers accountable for misconduct have helped paint a harsh portrait of an institution that refuses to earn the public trust it relies on to operate. In the eyes of many, meaningful oversight of law enforcement exists only in theory, not in practice, and agencies that are meant to protect the people instead protect each other. This perception of law enforcement as a self-serving institution fuels an adversarial relationship between police and the public, makes witnesses and victims less likely to report crime, and directly undercuts our ability to effectively keep communities safe.
The federal government’s handling of investigations into the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis now risk reinforcing that cynicism in the public mind. As retired officers with three decades of combined experience, we believe that independent and impartial investigations into these shootings are the only way to preserve public trust and protect the legitimacy of the profession we devoted our careers to.
To many observers, recent actions by federal authorities suggest the basic principles of transparency and accountability have been abandoned. After a series of high-profile public remarks by federal officials that sought to exonerate agents and blame Good following her death, the FBI seized sole control of the probe, excluding state and local authorities from accessing evidence, interviews, and other critical materials. Officials similarly portrayed Pretti as a deadly threat to officers, while federal agents reportedly blocked state authorities from accessing the scene.
Whatever one believes about the justification—or lack thereof—for these killings, there should be no objection to independent investigations that thoroughly examine the facts. If you are confident in the agents’ actions and believe the evidence supports that finding, an unbiased review is the best way to confirm it and remove lingering doubts.
For those who view these shootings as unjustified, however, the federal government’s decision to close off the investigations only reinforces the belief that police accountability is a farce. By rejecting independent scrutiny, the federal government risks eroding trust not just in ICE, but in law enforcement writ large. If the government is willing to dismiss such basic concerns about impartiality in cases with this level of public visibility, why should anyone trust that the investigative process will be fair or credible the next time law enforcement’s conduct is questioned?
Statements from leaders such as Vice President J.D. Vance, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and President Trump have only compounded that skepticism by rushing to characterize these shootings as both self-evidently lawful and morally justifiable. Instead of offering condolences or urging patience while an impartial probe runs its course, their push to preemptively exonerate the agents undermined an otherwise rigorous process meant to judge the use of lethal force according to the standards law enforcement is expected to uphold.
While people on both sides have sought to portray these cases as clear-cut, the reality is that use-of-force determinations are rarely simple. An unimpeded investigation into the killings of Good and Pretti should grapple with difficult but concrete questions that resist partisan interpretation. Central among them is whether agents reasonably perceived an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm at the precise moment lethal force was used—a determination that depends on observable facts, not generalized fear.
Investigators should also examine what alternatives were available in those seconds and whether they were feasible under the circumstances. That includes assessing distance, movement, positioning, and whether tactical decisions made earlier in the encounter contributed to the escalation. These are the same considerations local police departments across the country weigh after an officer-involved shooting, precisely because they speak to training, policy, and decision-making under stress.
Equally important is whether the agent’s actions were consistent with federal agencies’ own use-of-force policies and with widely accepted policing standards. That requires a careful review of commands given—or not given—warnings issued, the timing of the shots, and the role of any preexisting operational plan. These questions do not presume guilt or innocence. They reflect the baseline rigor that allows law enforcement professionals to distinguish between appropriate force and conduct that violates policy, training, or the law.
Related Articles
The No Kings Act: Why federal agents must be accountable under the Constitution Trump’s ICE: Kicking down doors, kicking down the Constitution California’s small CEQA workarounds aren’t enough to produce the housing needed Governing at gunpoint: ICE in Minneapolis Amy Reichert: Two friends, one broken immigration system By preemptively declaring the outcome and then consolidating control of the investigation, federal authorities have made it harder for the public to believe these questions will be examined with the seriousness they deserve. That perception alone is damaging. It not only deepens fears that federal law enforcement now operates with impunity, but also validates the corrosive belief among critics that law enforcement accountability is performative, selective, and political.From our years in law enforcement, we know that moments like this can have impacts that reverberate far beyond a single case or agency. While the spotlight may currently be on federal agencies and their tactics, the controversy over these shootings and the handling of investigations risks becoming a flashpoint over public confidence in police accountability more broadly. Across the country, people are watching these cases to see what they say about law enforcement’s willingness to be accountable to the communities it serves. Those judgments will shape trust, cooperation, and legitimacy long before—and long after—any legal determination is reached.
Lt. Diane Goldstein (Ret.) is a 21-year police veteran and executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), a nonprofit group of police, judges, and other law enforcement professionals who support policies that improve public safety and police-community relations.
Thaddeus L. Johnson, a former police officer and firearms and defensive tactics instructor, is a senior fellow at the Council on Criminal Justice and teaches at Georgia State University.
Hence then, the article about the minneapolis shootings are a test for police accountability was published today ( ) and is available on Los Angeles Daily News ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( The Minneapolis shootings are a test for police accountability )
Also on site :
- Canaan Inc. Acquires Cipher Mining's Interest in Multiple Operational Mining Projects Totaling ~4.4 EH/s in West Texas
- Pedestrian killed on 101 Freeway in Calabasas-Agoura Hills area
- Certis and FieldAI Form Strategic Partnership to Deploy Autonomous Robotics in Real-World Security Operations