Gemini Critiques

Scott Jennings

Opening Prompt:

Give me a detailed criticism of Scott Jennings logic and diversionary arguments on the Abby Phillips show discussing the shooting of Renee Good

Gemini Response:

The fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good on January 7, 2026, by an ICE agent in Minneapolis quickly became a flashpoint for political rhetoric. On CNN’s NewsNight with Abby Phillip, Scott Jennings’ defense of the ICE agent’s actions relied on a series of logical fallacies and diversionary tactics designed to shift the focus from the legality of the shooting to the character and alleged intent of the victim.

A detailed criticism of his arguments reveals four primary rhetorical strategies:

1. The Fallacy of "Officialism" (Appeal to Authority)

Jennings’ primary logical anchor was the official statement from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). When Abby Phillip pointed out that there was no confirmed evidence that Good was "stalking" agents, Jennings pivoted to:

"DHS has said out loud today that she had been tracking around ICE agents all day long. That is part of the reporting."

The Criticism: This is a classic appeal to authority. Jennings treats a preliminary government press release as settled fact, ignoring the inherent conflict of interest (the government is the defendant in this potential civil rights violation). By framing "reporting" as simply "repeating what DHS said," he bypasses the need for independent verification and ignores the eyewitness accounts and local law enforcement (like Mayor Jacob Frey) that contradicted the federal narrative.

2. Semantic Shift: Rebranding Observation as "Obstruction"

When fellow panelist Leigh McGowan questioned the illegality of following agents, Jennings responded:

"It's illegal to engage in obstruction of federal law enforcement."

The Criticism: This is a semantic diversion. Jennings conflates "legal observation" (filming or presence in a public space) with the criminal act of "obstruction." By moving the goalposts from the specific act of shooting to the general concept of federal law, he creates a logical leap:

  1. She was there → 2. Therefore she was following them → 3. Therefore she was obstructing → 4. Therefore the use of force was justified. This "ladder of inference" lacks the necessary rungs of evidence, specifically the legal threshold that would justify lethal force against a non-violent observer.

3. The "Insurrectionist" Framing (Character Assassination)

Echoing White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt and Secretary Kristi Noem, Jennings utilized pejorative labeling to delegitimize Good’s status as a citizen. By implying she was a "leftist" operative or an "insurrectionist," he attempted to move the conversation into a partisan framework.

The Criticism: This is an Ad Hominem (circumstantial) argument. Even if Good were a political activist, her political beliefs are irrelevant to the legal standard of whether an agent can fire three shots into a moving vehicle. By framing her as a "threat to law and order" based on her alleged associations, Jennings uses a diversionary tactic to make the victim appear "deserving" of the outcome, a common strategy in cases of state-involved violence.

4. False Dilemma and Deflection

When pressed on the fact that Good lived in the neighborhood and was likely terrified, Jennings offered a False Dilemma:

"You think they may have just accidentally wandered in there? ... You say the federal government is lying?"

The Criticism: This tactic forces the host into a binary choice: either the government is 100% correct, or you are a conspiracy theorist calling them liars. It ignores the nuance of misinformation or preliminary error. By challenging Phillip’s skepticism as an attack on the government’s integrity, he successfully diverts the discussion away from the video evidence—which showed the agent shooting as the car moved away—and toward a debate about "supporting law enforcement."

Summary of Logical Failures

  • Non-Sequitur: The jump from "she was present" to "she deserved to be shot" does not follow.

  • Whataboutism: Deflecting from the agent’s conduct by focusing on the victim’s alleged "day-long" behavior.

  • Begging the Question: Jennings assumes the agent was in danger (the conclusion) because the government said so, rather than proving it through the available footage.

Would you like to analyze the specific video timestamps of the incident to see how they compare to the arguments Jennings made on the show?

Follow-Up Prompt:

Give me a little bit more about his avoidance strategies of moving away from looking at the ICE agent's behavior. Please cite language and examples

Gemini Follow-Up Response:

In his appearance on NewsNight, Scott Jennings employed several specific linguistic maneuvers to pivot the focus away from the ICE agent's tactical decisions—specifically the choice to fire into a moving vehicle—and toward the victim's perceived intent.

By analyzing his rhetoric, we can see three primary "avoidance strategies" used to shield the agent’s behavior from scrutiny.

1. The "Hostile Environment" Abstraction

Jennings repeatedly used language that characterized the entire setting as inherently dangerous, which serves to justify the agent's actions as a reflexive survival response rather than a tactical choice.

  • Specific Language: "You have agents performing high-stakes enforcement in a city that has been openly hostile to federal authority."

  • The Strategy: This is a contextual diversion. By invoking the general political climate of Minneapolis (a city known for friction with federal law enforcement), Jennings implies the agent was under a "generalized threat."

  • Why it avoids the agent's behavior: It shifts the debate from "Was this specific shot legal?" to "Is Minneapolis a dangerous place for ICE?" If the audience accepts that the environment is "hostile," they are more likely to excuse a "nervous" trigger finger without examining whether the car actually posed an immediate threat of death or serious injury.

2. The "Passive Voice" of State Action

When forced to address the actual shooting, Jennings often shifted from active to passive or clinical language to minimize the agent's agency.

  • Specific Language: "When a situation like this escalates..." or "The tragedy that occurred during the encounter."

  • The Strategy: Use of the Passive Voice and Euphemism. Notice he rarely says, "The agent chose to fire his weapon." Instead, the "situation escalates" or "tragedy occurs."

  • Why it avoids the agent's behavior: This framing makes the shooting seem like a natural disaster—something that "happened"—rather than a series of conscious decisions made by a trained professional. It removes the "actor" (the agent) from the "action" (the shooting), making accountability feel less applicable.

3. The "Victim-as-Architect" Diversion

Perhaps his most frequent strategy was to frame Renee Good not as a victim of a shooting, but as the sole creator of the circumstances that "forced" the agent to act.

  • Specific Language: "If she hadn't been there tracking them, we wouldn't be talking about this," and "She put those agents in a position where they had to make a split-second judgment."

  • The Strategy: The "But-For" Fallacy. This logic suggests that because Good initiated the interaction (by being present or filming), she is 100% responsible for the outcome.

  • Why it avoids the agent's behavior: This is a classic "shifting of the burden." In police/agent conduct cases, the legal and ethical standard is based on the officer's response to a situation, regardless of how it started. By focusing on why she was there, Jennings successfully avoids discussing why the agent didn't just let the car drive away.

Summary of Rhetorical Piling

Jennings uses a technique sometimes called "The Gish Gallop"—piling up so many secondary questions (her motives, her political ties, the city's crime rate) that the central question (the agent’s use of force) is buried under the weight of the diversions.

Note on the Ladder of Inference: Jennings starts at the bottom with "Selected Data" (the DHS press release) and skips immediately to "Actions" (justifying the shooting), bypassing the critical middle steps of objective reasoning and testing assumptions.

Would you like to look at the legal "Objective Reasonableness" standard (the Graham v. Connor standard) and see how Jennings' arguments attempt to bypass these specific legal requirements?

Taking It One Step Further:

yes

Gemini Takes It One Step Further:

The "Objective Reasonableness" standard, established by the 1989 Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, is the legal yardstick used to determine if a federal agent’s use of force was a constitutional violation or a justified action.

Scott Jennings’ rhetorical strategy on NewsNight is a textbook example of "legal sidestepping." By using political and character-based arguments, he attempts to satisfy the emotional logic of a viewer while ignoring the specific legal criteria that a court would actually use.

The Three "Graham Factors"

When a court evaluates the Renee Good shooting, it doesn't look at the political climate of Minneapolis; it looks at three specific factors at the moment the trigger was pulled:

  1. Severity of the Crime: What crime was the suspect believed to have committed?

  2. Immediate Threat: Did the suspect pose an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others?

  3. Active Resistance/Flight: Was the suspect actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade?

How Jennings Bypasses the Law

Jennings’ avoidance strategies are designed to move the goalposts away from these three factors. Here is how his language contrasts with the legal requirements:

1. Severity of the Crime

  • The Legal Standard: Was Renee Good a violent felon or a person committing a minor infraction (like a traffic violation or public observation)?

  • Jennings’ Strategy: He uses the term "obstruction of federal law enforcement." * The Diversion: By using a high-level, scary-sounding legal term, he elevates a low-level interaction into a "federal crime." This attempts to make the use of force seem proportional to a "threat against the state" rather than a response to a person in a car.

2. The "Immediate Threat" (The most critical factor)

  • The Legal Standard: Under the 2025 Barnes v. Felix ruling, courts ask: Was the officer in the direct path of the car, and was shooting the only way to save their life?

  • Jennings’ Strategy: He cites the "hostile environment" and "stalking behavior."

  • The Diversion: He shifts from an Objective Threat (the physical car) to a Subjective Vibe (the agent felt "stalked" or "hated" in Minneapolis). Legally, an agent’s "feeling" of being disliked by a city does not grant them the right to use lethal force. Jennings uses "day-long tracking" to imply a threat that justifies the shooting, even if no weapon or vehicular charge was present at the second of the shooting.

3. Active Resistance vs. De-escalation

  • The Legal Standard: Did the agent have an opportunity to step out of the way or let the vehicle go?

  • Jennings’ Strategy: He uses the phrase "Split-second judgment."

  • The Diversion: This is a linguistic shield. While Graham v. Connor does allow for split-second decisions, Jennings uses it to shut down all analysis of the agent's pre-shooting behavior. If the agent created the danger by stepping in front of a moving car (a tactic often criticized by the DOJ), the "split-second" defense fails. Jennings avoids this by focusing entirely on Good’s choice to be there.

Why this matters

By framing the incident through the lens of loyalty to the mission rather than adherence to the Fourth Amendment, Jennings moves the audience from a "rule of law" mindset to a "rule of authority" mindset. In his logic, the agent's behavior doesn't need to be reasonable—it only needs to be defensible within the context of a "war" on the border or in the streets.

The Unapologetic Scott Jennings:

If you’re interested in watching the clip with analysis, here’s the an option for you.