ICE is ignoring the hard lessons of the Rodney King beating in LA

from Jim NewtonCalMatters

This comment was originally posted by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

Scenes from Minneapolis raise profound questions about the limits of federal power, the legality and purpose of immigration enforcement, and the specter of masked agents who harass, manipulate and even kill Americans who dare speak out against their actions.

Whichever side you come down on with these questions, one problem is indisputable: ICE is poorly staffed and poorly managed.

I say this from years of experience covering police misconduct and civilian oversight of law enforcement, and seeing the hard-won lessons Los Angeles has learned over the past few decades.

Key elements of the reforms that overhauled the Los Angeles Police Department were apparently—perhaps intentionally—lost by federal authorities in their zeal to punish undocumented migrants. Such principles as de-escalation, accountability, and a commitment to protecting and serving the public have gone out the window. This is unfortunate, because it was these principles that led the LAPD from disgrace and back to honor.

Take the meeting between ICE agent Jonathan Ross and Renee Nicole Goode, a Minneapolis mother of three who had took his son to school on January 7. Guerrillas have taken to interpreting the viral footage of this fatal confrontation in their favor, but some elements of the incident are not in dispute.

Ross drove around Good’s Honda Pilot SUV while taking pictures on his cell phone (not his body camera, as some reports have suggested). His fellow agents approached the driver’s side, cursing and demanding Good get out of the vehicle.

Good put into reverse, then turned the wheel and lurched forward. Ross fired three times, one through the windshield, two through the open driver’s side window.

Vice President J.D. Vance and White House counsel Stephen Miller, along with other administration officials, subsequently sided with Ross and said he was protected by immunity for actions he took while on duty.

Each of these steps and statements—none of which is disputed—constitutes a failure of responsible law enforcement.

First, the approach to the SUV. Ross’s decision to film the episode himself on his cell phone is proof that he didn’t consider the situation objectively dangerous — he felt comfortable recording it rather than preparing for a confrontation.

Then why did you pull out your weapon?

LAPD use of force the policy provides for this scenariowarning officers not to brandish weapons too soon.

“Unnecessary or premature drawing or display of a firearm limits the officer’s alternatives to control the situation, creates unnecessary anxiety on the part of citizens, and may result in an unjustified or accidental discharge of the firearm,” the policy notes. “Officers shall not draw or display a firearm unless the circumstances surrounding the incident create a reasonable belief that the use of the firearm may be necessary.”

The attempt to open Goode’s car door, the agents’ foul language, and Ross’s decision to pull the gun all escalated the situation rather than defused it. These are unreasonable police tactics.

As Goode began to move his vehicle, Ross was standing in front of him – tactically stupid if he was really concerned about her escape. He and others claim that the SUV hit him, although the videos appear to disprove that and strongly refute the claim that he was “run over.”

In both cases, his decision to shoot Goode through the windshield and open window also goes against smart police practice.

Again, LAPD guidance in this area: “An officer threatened by an approaching vehicle should move out of its way rather than discharge a firearm at it or any of its occupants,” the policy reads. There is an exception; police officers may be justified in shooting at a car if the driver “immediately threatens the officer or other person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle.” But it emphasized, “A moving vehicle alone should not presumptively present a threat that justifies an officer’s use of deadly force.”

In this case, no one – not even Stephen Miller – suggested that Goode posed a threat other than with her vehicle. She was unarmed and even docile in her dealings with the agents. Agent Ross’s shots into the vehicle violated the considered guidelines for the use of his weapon.

Qualified immunity

And finally, immunity. Speaking to reporters two days after Ross killed Goode, Vance said the agent had nothing to legitimately fear. “You have a federal law enforcement officer involved in federal law enforcement — that’s a federal issue,” Vance said. “This person is protected by absolute immunity.”

This is both false and unreasonable. It is not wise because civil authorities should maintain oversight when it comes to managing law enforcement. No one – neither conservatives nor liberals – wants armed agents or police who are not accountable to the law. This quickly turns into riots and chaos, as Los Angeles learned in the 1990s.

On the contrary, clear rules backed by oversight and accountability allow the police to do their jobs and the public to feel fairly treated, a situation that is good for public and officer safety. Sergeant Stacey Coon and Officer Lawrence Powell enjoyed qualified immunity as Los Angeles police officers. However, they went to jail for violating Rodney King’s civil rights, and Los Angeles was better for it.

So Vance is foolish to suggest that agents can act with impunity. He’s so wrong that the agents might want to consider how deliberately he’s misleading them.

No statute of limitations

Ross can, for all practical purposes, be “immunized” from federal prosecution as long as the lawless heads of Justice and Homeland Security—led, after all, by the cynical Pam Bondi and the laughably unqualified Christy Noem—use their positions to prevent investigation and prosecution.

But Ross killed a woman, and murder is often a state crime, not a federal crime. There is no statute of limitations for murder, so Ross is on the hook in Minnesota for the rest of his life for his actions that day.

No ICE agent has ever been investigated for civil rights violations, much less prosecuted. But neither Vance, Noem, nor Donald Trump himself will be around to protect Ross and his colleagues forever.

What Vance really offers is protection, a concept more often associated with the Gambino family than federal law. And his protection is temporary at best.

The keys to responsible law enforcement operations are accountability, restraint, dedication to the public interest, and careful civilian oversight. These are the lessons of Los Angeles in the 1980s and 1990s, lessons that the federal government today willfully chooses to ignore.

Anyone who lived during those years in LA could predict what would happen next. Hint: Not good.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and is republished under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license.