Captain Sonia Pruitt- Breakdown on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (Parts 1-3)
- Elinor A. McNeel
- Feb 11
- 6 min read
Captain Sonia Pruitt breaks down ICE, DHS, the DOJ, and the environment in Minneapolis
Captain Sonia Pruitt’s three recordings respond to the fatal shootings involving ICE agents in Minneapolis by centering urgent questions of accountability, use of force, and institutional values. In the first recording, she offers condolences, highlights the proximity of this killing to George Floyd’s murder, and presses for answers about how an interaction over a stuck vehicle escalated to lethal force—questioning warrants, identification, and the rapid labeling of the victim as a “domestic terrorist.” She warns that structural obstacles—federal supremacy, qualified immunity, and a lack of independent investigation—make criminal or civil accountability unlikely, and she urges realistic public expectations while critiquing the erosion of de‑escalation and constitutional protections.
In the second and third recordings, Pruitt examines the specifics of Renee Good’s shooting and the broader culture within ICE. She argues Good likely acted from fear and that video evidence and professional guidance from PERF, IACP, and DOJ suggest officers should avoid shooting at moving vehicles except in truly extreme circumstances; the agent did not appear to be in the vehicle’s path nor to have attempted to move out of harm’s way. Expanding the lens in the third recording, Pruitt analyzes ICE’s mission, vision, and values against DHS commitments to civil rights, stressing that lived organizational values and enforceable oaths are essential for transparency, accountability, and rebuilding public trust after repeated vehicle‑related shootings.
Part One: The Captain shares her analysis on the tragic shooting today of a woman byU.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis.
Summary of First Conversation: Part One
In her first recording of A Reel for Black Coffee, No Sugar, No Cream, Sonia Pruitt delivers an immediate response to the fatal shooting of a woman in Minneapolis by an ICE agent, emphasizing the urgency and gravity of the incident. She begins by offering condolences to the victim’s family and expresses deep concern for the city of Minneapolis, noting the proximity—both geographically and historically—to the murder of George Floyd just five years earlier.
Pruitt raises critical unanswered questions surrounding the encounter, particularly how ICE agents moved from dealing with a vehicle stuck in the snow to attempting to open the victim’s car door and ultimately using lethal force. She questions whether there was a warrant, why the agent drew a firearm, and why a U.S. citizen was being approached at all—especially if the interaction stemmed from protest activity, potentially implicating First Amendment rights.
She voices skepticism about the likelihood of criminal charges, citing a lack of confidence in the government conducting a truly independent investigation. Pruitt highlights her concern over the Department of Homeland Security’s rapid labeling of the victim as a “domestic terrorist,” pointing out that this determination was made before a full investigation could reasonably occur. She also references public statements made by Donald Trump, asserting that the victim was resisting and that the officer was injured, which she contrasts with video evidence showing the officer walking away uninjured.
Pruitt explains legal barriers to accountability, including the difficulty of state-level prosecution due to the federal supremacy clause and the obstacle of qualified immunity in potential civil litigation. She stresses the importance of managing public expectations given these structural challenges.
She further discusses standard investigative considerations in use-of-force cases, especially those involving vehicles, noting that many law enforcement agencies train officers to avoid placing themselves in the path of moving vehicles to reduce the need for deadly force. She questions whether such policies or training will meaningfully factor into this investigation.
In her closing remarks, Pruitt underscores broader systemic issues: the failure to prioritize de-escalation, disregard for constitutional rights, erosion of humanity in policing, and the glorification of unchecked law enforcement power. She concludes that when these elements converge, the outcomes are predictably chaotic and, as in this case, tragic.
Part Two: The Captain shares her analysis on the standards for the use of force as it applies to the ICE shooting in Minneapolis.
Summary of Second Conversation – Renee Good
In this second recording, Sonia Pruitt focuses on the use-of-force questions surrounding the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent. She challenges the common narrative that prioritizes law enforcement’s need to make split-second decisions while often ignoring the fear, mental state, and decision-making of civilians involved in these encounters.
Pruitt suggests that Renee Good was likely acting out of fear when she attempted to drive away after a stranger tried to open her car door, questioning whether the agent properly identified himself. She emphasizes that civilians, like officers, must make rapid decisions to protect themselves and that Good’s apparent intent—based on available video—was to escape, not to harm anyone.
She critiques the rapid escalation from agents attempting to free vehicles stuck in snow to the use of lethal force, noting that video evidence shows other vehicles maneuvering around Good’s car, contradicting claims that she was blocking traffic. Pruitt questions whether the encounter stemmed from irritation over a traffic violation rather than any imminent threat.
Addressing whether the shooting was “justified,” Pruitt explains that in law enforcement terms, justified does not equate to necessary—it often means the officer is not held accountable. She asserts that the agent had alternative options but failed to use them.
Pruitt then conducts a detailed review of professional law enforcement standards regarding use of force against moving vehicles. She cites guidance from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and the U.S. Department of Justice, all of which strongly discourage shooting at moving vehicles except under extreme circumstances—such as when the vehicle is being used as a deadly weapon and no reasonable alternatives, including moving out of the vehicle’s path, exist.
Based on video analysis, Pruitt notes that the agent did not appear to be in the direct path of Good’s SUV and did not attempt to step away. She argues that DOJ policy and training would have required de-escalation by moving out of harm’s way rather than advancing toward the vehicle with a drawn weapon.
She also highlights a concerning pattern, stating that ICE had been involved in nine shootings over a four-month period, all involving vehicles. Pruitt concludes by asserting that the use of lethal force against Renee Good was neither warranted, justified, nor necessary, and invites viewers to critically assess the incident for themselves.
Part Three: The Captain shares her analysis about the difference between DOJ and DHS.
Summary of Third Conversation – Alex Pretti
In this third recording, Sonia Pruitt shifts the focus from a single use-of-force incident to a broader examination of ICE as an organization following the death of Alex Pretti in an encounter with ICE in Minneapolis. She explains that understanding agency behavior requires examining its mission, vision, and values—the foundational elements that define how an organization is meant to operate.
Pruitt outlines how a mission statement serves as an outward-facing declaration of an organization’s purpose, while a vision reflects leadership goals and values act as guiding principles that shape daily decision-making, discretion, and organizational culture. She emphasizes that in law enforcement, values should be stable and consistently reflected in how officers exercise authority and interact with the public.
She then reviews the mission and core values of the Department of Homeland Security, noting that DHS’s mission emphasizes safeguarding the nation with honor and integrity. DHS values, she explains, include integrity, service before self, respect, and a stated commitment to liberty, democracy, privacy, transparency, civil rights, and civil liberties. Pruitt also notes that ICE’s mission centers on enforcing immigration laws, a point she highlights when discussing the limits of ICE’s authority.
Pruitt underscores that government agents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution and serve the public in alignment with their agency’s mission and values. These commitments, she argues, are not symbolic but enforceable standards by which organizations and their members must be judged.
She concludes by stressing that clear mission statements and lived organizational values are essential to transparency and accountability—both of which are critical to rebuilding public trust that has been severely eroded by violent encounters. Pruitt asserts that the public bears responsibility for understanding governmental authority and holding local, state, and federal agencies accountable for honoring constitutional principles, closing with the reminder that an organization’s word, and the oath taken by its members, must carry real meaning.
About the author
Elinor A. McNeel, currently retired after a lengthy career as a Legal Assistant, decided to return to school and is presently attending Penn State University, completing her Bachelor’s Degree in Law and Society. She enjoys reading a good book, writing, editing, and anything involving technology. Elinor is a published author of Understanding Rhetoric: A Student Guide with Samples and Analysis. Originally from Chicago, Ill, her family relocated to Los Angeles, California where she presently resides.
Comments