In this essay for The Free Press, Elliot Ackerman examines the fatal shooting of Renee Good by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross and the renewed debate over law enforcement use of force.
Ackerman focuses on one question at the center of the controversy: whether an officer’s past traumatic experience can justify a later use of lethal force. He argues that law enforcement officers must bring reasonable judgment to every encounter, regardless of prior danger or injury.
Objective Reasonableness and Use of Force
The essay considers the legal standard of “objective reasonableness,” rooted in the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor. Under that standard, use-of-force decisions must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not by hindsight alone.
Ackerman warns against allowing past trauma to redefine that standard. If officers are trusted to use lethal force, the public must also be able to trust that the rules governing force remain objective.
Trauma, Judgment, and Public Trust
The essay also examines how political leaders and agencies respond after controversial shootings. Ackerman argues that defending an officer by citing prior trauma risks moving the boundaries of reasonableness and weakening public confidence in law enforcement.
At a time when Americans increasingly disagree about basic facts, the essay asks whether a society can sustain a justice system if the use of violence depends on standards no one agrees are objective.
Read the Full Essay
Read Elliot Ackerman’s full essay, “The ICE Shooter’s Trauma Is No Defense,” at The Free Press.