When the Badge Matches Your Politics: The Mirror Test

By Kenneth Feagins III | Guest Contributor

Collin County is a place where you can hear, in the same conversation, distrust of Washington D.C. and hunger for Washington D.C. to crack down. It depends on the target. That is not hypocrisy unique to the right or the left. It is a human temptation. But it is also how federal power grows without limits.

That is the lens I cannot shake after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis on January 7. Watching the reaction reminded me of Daniel Shaver in Mesa: not because the facts are identical, but because the reflexes are. When the state uses lethal force, too many people start by asking whether the victim “deserved it,” instead of whether the government acted within the confines of the law, policy, and restraint.

The Fog of Disputed Facts

Good’s shooting is now in the familiar fog of disputed facts. There are videos, but videos do not answer every question. Was Ross facing an unavoidable threat? Did the vehicle strike him? Did he have a clear path to move out of danger? Those questions cannot be settled by partisan certainty. They can only be settled by a comprehensive, independent review that examines the entire sequence of events.

Why the Process Matters

And that process matters because it appears to be breaking down. Reporting describes a rapid public defense of the shooting and even a claim in the political debate that Ross is shielded by “absolute immunity.” Multiple reports also describe the DOJ declining to pursue the Civil Rights Division’s typical criminal civil rights role in this instance, prompting resignations in protest. You do not have to assume bad faith to see the problem. A system that declares “no wrongdoing” before showing its work demands trust when skepticism should be the natural instinct.

Mesa taught many Americans the cost of that attitude. Daniel Shaver’s killing in January 2016 and the later acquittal of Officer Philip “Mitch” Brailsford left people across the spectrum with the same lingering question: why did it have to end that way? The details were damning, not because they proved a particular legal outcome, but because they exposed a culture. The “You’re f****ed” inscription. The posture. The sense that escalation was the default. Mesa later settled with Shaver’s widow. Money is not justice. It is a receipt for failure.

What the Law Actually Requires

The law gives us a clearer way to talk about this without turning it into a tribal fight. The Supreme Court’s latest use-of-force decision, Barnes v. Felix, reaffirmed the basic standard from Graham v. Connor and corrected a narrowing approach that had taken hold in our own circuit. Barnes said judges cannot put “chronological blinders” on and consider only the final moment of danger. They must consider the totality of the circumstances. At the same time, another Supreme Court case, County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, rejected a shortcut that sought to automatically label a shooting unreasonable simply because officers had made earlier mistakes. Together, these cases point to a balanced principle: the lead-up matters, and it must be examined carefully, but it must be examined honestly.

Policy, Escalation, and Moving Vehicles

Policy often reframes legal principle. DHS’s written use-of-force rules emphasize safe tactics, including avoiding “intentionally and unreasonably” placing officers in positions where deadly force becomes the only option. DOJ policy restricts firing at moving vehicles and stresses that deadly force is justified only when there is no other objectively reasonable means, including moving out of the vehicle’s path. Those rules exist because agencies know a hard truth: positioning and escalation choices can manufacture a crisis that later looks “reasonable” on paper.

The Mirror Test

This is where the mirror matters. The inconsistency is not accidental. It is a product of how federal power itself is justified. People who distrust the ATF often demand strict oversight when federal enforcement touches firearms. People who distrust ICE often demand strict oversight when federal enforcement touches immigration. Both instincts can be valid. The failure is when each side turns off its instincts the moment “their” agency pulls the trigger.

Here is the tell: when federal power is aimed at your target, implied authority feels necessary. When it is aimed at your neighbor, suddenly, we remember enumerated powers and the Tenth Amendment. The Second Amendment is clearly written. Immigration authority is not laid out in a single clean clause; it is justified through implied and related powers and sustained by long-standing doctrine, with courts generally treating immigration regulation as predominantly federal through preemption. That reality does not excuse a reflex to cheer. It should trigger the same demand you would make in a controversial gun raid: show the boundary, show the policy compliance, and show the independent review before you ask the public to trust the trigger pull.

The most common defense is that a vehicle can be a deadly weapon, and yes, it can be. But potential lethality alone has never been enough. Mere possession of a firearm, by itself, is not an immediate justification for an officer to use deadly force, and neither is the mere presence of a vehicle. Barnes clarifies that the inquiry cannot be reduced to the last second. If policy says officers should avoid placing themselves in hazardous positions that leave no alternative but deadly force, then the lead-up is precisely what an independent review must evaluate.

So here is the challenge, and it is aimed at both sides. If an ATF-style operation ended with a dead citizen on camera, and officials rushed to declare “no wrongdoing,” pushed immunity claims, and shut down the usual avenues of civil-rights scrutiny, would you accept that as sufficient? If not, do not accept it here either. If yes, be honest about what you are choosing: not order, but unchecked power.

Collin County does not need uniform opinions on guns or immigration to agree on a civic baseline: when the federal government uses lethal force, we should demand the same standards, the same skepticism, and the same independent scrutiny, no matter whose politics are satisfied in the moment. Otherwise, “my overreach” becomes the precedent for “your overreach,” and the pendulum just swings back harder.

About the Author: Kenneth Feagins III is a senior data analyst in Plano and chair of the Collin County Libertarian Party. He also serves on the Libertarian Party of Texas Executive Committee.