Let’s talk about why JD Vance is completely wrong and spreading lies to the American public.
In public statements and television appearances, Vance has suggested that the ICE agent who killed Renee Good was acting appropriately and should be shielded from state prosecution, even claiming the agent was “more sensitive to the situation.” That framing is misleading and dangerous. It attempts to preempt accountability by invoking federal authority and emotional justification rather than law. Sensitivity is not a legal standard. Lawfulness is.
Federal authorities have asserted control over the investigation and have blocked state investigators from accessing key evidence. This obstruction is deeply concerning. By keeping the investigation entirely within federal hands, officials appear to be attempting to control the narrative and claim that the state lacks authority to charge the killing. That argument is not rooted in law it is a tactic to delay, deflect, and cover-up.
Legal analysts and misconduct experts strongly dispute the idea that federal agents enjoy blanket protection from state criminal law. Commentators, including those writing in The American Prospect, emphasize that federal officers do not have absolute immunity. When a federal agent acts outside the lawful scope of their duties (especially in cases involving unlawful use of deadly force) their badge does not place them above state law. Murder and unjustified killings are not protected acts.
Some federal officials, including Vance, have argued that federal agents are broadly shielded from state prosecution, portraying the shooting as justified and insisting that only federal authorities can determine accountability. This argument deliberately conflates federal employment with immunity. Federal jurisdiction does not erase a state’s authority to enforce criminal law when a death occurs within its borders.
Compounding the seriousness of this case is the fact that this was the agent’s second incident. A repeat pattern fundamentally changes the legal and moral analysis. An officer with a prior incident is held to a higher standard of care, not a lower one. Experience does not excuse excessive force, it increases responsibility. A second incident signals a failure of judgment, training, or control, making state review even more critical.
Vance’s attempt to frame the agent’s actions through the lens of PTSD only further undermines his argument. PTSD is not a moral failing, but it is also not a legal defense for killing someone. If an individual cannot reliably control their responses under stress, they have a legal and ethical obligation not to be in the field carrying a deadly weapon. This is true across all armed professions. Far from excusing the conduct, the acknowledgment of unmanaged PTSD makes the situation worse, not better.
The statement that “ICE agents do not have absolute immunity” reflects the position of misconduct experts who have deposed thousands of law enforcement officers. Immunity is conditional, not automatic. It applies only when officers act within lawful authority. When they do not, states retain both the right and the responsibility to act.
Federal agents can be prosecuted under state law when their conduct exceeds lawful federal authority. Blocking evidence, restricting access, and insisting on federal exclusivity only heightens the need for state action. Allowing federal authorities to unilaterally control the process sets a dangerous precedent one in which federal agents are effectively untouchable, regardless of harm caused.
This is why the state not only can act, but must act. Accountability cannot depend on the agency involved, and justice cannot be delegated to the same system that may be protecting itself. The rule of law demands independent review, and the state has both the legal standing and the obligation to pursue it.
Source