Justice requires a full and fair investigation of Jan. 7 tragedy in Minneapolis in which a federal immigration officer shot and killed a protester.
But if current behavior continues, the investigation is unlikely to be either full or fair, and even less likely to be accepted as trustworthy by the American public. That outcome would be a body blow to our civic culture.
Few things are more important than how a society decides what is true. In the United States, we depend on specific ways of determining what is true — and, in cases such as what happened in Minneapolis, who is innocent and who is guilty.
Those time-tested ways are rooted in humility, trust, discipline, and most of all, restraint.
Let’s review.
Renee Nicole Good, 37, was killed during an altercation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis on Wednesday, Jan. 7.
When a life is lost, government officials and civic leaders are first expected to express personal regret and sorrow for the loss. Next, they are expected to assure us, and then make sure, that the government will follow the proper procedures for a non-partisan investigation. Finally, they are expected to accept the results of those procedures, even if they don’t like them.
This way of proceeding is based on core democratic principles. The first principle is civility. The second is a process governed by rules, not people. The third is transparency. The fourth is a commitment to the careful examination of all the evidence. The fifth is the involvement of people with credentialed juridical expertise.
And the final and most important is a commitment to fair-mindedness and the sincere search for the truth, regardless of political consequences.
This traditional method does not guarantee a fair outcome in every case, but it’s far more likely to do so than the new method we are currently adopting. This method is based on who holds political power. It is rooted in arrogance, aggression, hatred of political adversaries, and tolerance of procedural sloppiness.
If you want to know how it works in practice, just look around.
Are you a government official who just heard about the shooting death in Minneapolis? Announce immediately that you know what happened, say that you are fighting evil, and call a press conference for the next morning in order to speak with righteous outrage.
Are you a citizen who just heard about the controversy? Trust your political instincts and pick a side — now.
Hear a politician or journalist you like tell you what to believe? Believe it.
Hear someone you don’t like tell you what to believe? Don’t believe it.
Are you a powerful political leader who wants to ignore and disparage old-fashioned, rule-based investigations? Say that such investigations are rigged and that the people who run them are corrupt.
What’s at stake in all of this is one of the foundations of our democratic way of life. Societies wishing to remain free cannot determine what is true on the basis of which leaders are currently in power, who can shout the loudest, or who can use the most extreme or threatening language.
Do we need someone to blame for this dangerous predicament? Please, let’s not simply blame President Donald Trump, or former President Joe Biden, or the man behind the tree.
Let’s blame ourselves. We are not all equally complicit, but we are all complicit.
And if we are losing the civic virtues on which our form of government depends, only “We, the People” can reclaim and renew them.
It’s not too late. Our civic decline is not inevitable. What happens in the future is in our hands.
Do we need an idea? Regarding the Jan. 7 Minneapolis shooting, it would be unwise for the FBI to conduct the investigation, as is currently being proposed by the administration.
In fact, it would be harmful for any federal agency to conduct it. President Trump, Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Todd Lyons, and many other high-ranking administration officials have all stated in the strongest possible terms that they already know what happened and where guilt and innocence lie.
This is tantamount to announcing the outcome of the investigation prior to the investigation.
A better idea would be an independent commission consisting of members mutually agreed on and appointed by President Trump, the nation’s ranking Republican official, and New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, our ranking Democratic official.
The commission’s mandate would be to carry out a full, fair and impartial investigation. The commission’s findings would likely not carry the force of law, but both its existence and method could remind us of what it looks and feels like to behave as if a nonpartisan process guided by fair rules and serious deliberation is more important to us than any particular result.