From Crystal Lake’s John Collins, wrting as an individual, not as a County Board member:
I strongly disagree with the framing being used here, and I think it ultimately undermines a serious discussion that this situation deserves.
First, holding law enforcement to federal standards and constitutional law is not “hoping for riots,” “manufacturing outrage,” or “lionizing” anyone. It is the basic expectation in a nation governed by the rule of law. Calling for accountability is not the same thing as celebrating tragedy, and it is reckless to suggest that anyone is rooting for death or chaos for political gain.
Second, this is not about camera angles, selective photos, or emotional manipulation. It is about what federal law and federal training require. Under long-standing Supreme Court precedent, deadly force must be objectively reasonable and based on an immediate, unavoidable threat, not one created by tactical choices made by the officer. Investigators and courts routinely examine whether a threat existed independently, or whether it arose because an officer placed themselves in harm’s way.
That is why federal, state, county, and local agencies train officers to avoid standing directly in front of a running, occupied vehicle whenever possible. This guidance exists to protect officers, civilians, and public trust. Raising that issue is not anti-ICE, anti-Trump, or anti-law enforcement, it is pro-professionalism and grounded in training doctrine.
Third, reducing every public concern to “the Left,” “the media,” or racial conspiracy theories does not advance understanding. Communities can simultaneously reject riots, condemn violence against officers, and still insist on a transparent review of whether legal and training standards were followed. Those positions are not in conflict.
Fourth, dehumanizing people after they are killed, whether George Floyd or Renee Nicole Good, does not strengthen an argument. Courts do not evaluate use-of-force cases based on whether a person lived a perfect life, committed past crimes, or fits someone’s political narrative. They evaluate whether the officer’s actions at that moment complied with constitutional and professional standards.
Finally, accountability does not justify violence, and no serious person supports violence against ICE or any law-enforcement agency. But accountability also does not justify dismissing legitimate questions by attributing malicious intent to entire political groups or to grieving families.
The responsible path forward is simple: a full, transparent investigation, that includes federal, state, and local authorities, that applies federal training standards and Supreme Court law, without rhetoric, without demonization, and without pretending that asking hard questions is somehow a threat to public order. That is how trust is maintained, and that is how law enforcement professionalism is protected.
= = = = =
The website Reason has this summary in its pretty comprehensive article:
“:The Post said the videos it analyzed “do not clearly show whether the agent is struck or how close the front of the vehicle comes to striking him.” On Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance posted cellphone video, apparently recorded by Ross himself, that suggests he was in fact hit by the front bumper before moving out of the way. But the evidence so far does not definitively resolve the issue of whether the shots Ross fired as the car moved away from him were legally justified, which hinges on whether he reasonably believed he was in danger at that point, even if that belief may have been mistaken.”
