Did Walz sign Minnesota law letting officers use deadly force on some drivers? The truth is more complicated

The Jan. 7, 2026, killing of Renee Nicole Good in her car by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in Minneapolis sparked a wave of online claims about what the law allows when officers confront moving vehicles after federal authorities said the agent fatally shot Good, who was in her car, in an act of self-defense. 

In the days that followed the shooting, one widely shared piece of text appeared to cite Minnesota Statutes Section 609.066 as justification for the killing. According to the posts, that law asserts that if a driver accelerates toward an officer standing in front of a car, that automatically creates an "immediate, life-threatening danger" and the officer "doesn't need to wait until impact" before using deadly force.

One X post (archived) making the claim that the officer acted legally under Minnesota law read:

🚨Minnesota Statutes § 609.066
If a driver accelerates toward an officer standing in front of the vehicle, this creates an immediate, life-threatening danger.

The officer doesn't need to wait until impact; they can act based on the apparent intent and proximity.

(X user @jersey_puzzykat)

The purported law spread across social media platforms, including Instagram, TikTok, X and Facebook, with some users posting the text in comment threads under news coverage about the shooting.

Some versions paired the same text with an additional claim that it was "signed into law by Governor Tim Walz on July 23, 2020," after "a special legislative session."

(X user @mickitiki)

However, the alleged paragraph was not a direct quote from Minnesota Statutes Section 609.066. The real statute sets a case-by-case standard requiring an objectively reasonable belief, based on the totality of the circumstances, that deadly force is necessary. It doesn't directly address the scenario of a car driving toward an officer — in other words, the text shared in social media posts appeared to be an internet user's interpretation of the law in the context of Good's killing. 

Moreover, while Walz did, on July 23, 2020, sign a police reform package that amended Minnesota's existing use-of-force laws, those changes did not add the wording being shared online. 

Finally, the law mentioned in the post was a state law — it wouldn't govern a federal agent such as the ICE officer who shot Good.

How the rumor spread

The claim circulated in two main versions. The first was as a legal-sounding passage presented as either a quote or a summary of Minnesota Statutes Section 609.066 and the second version claimed the "bill was signed into law by Governor Tim Walz on July 23, 2020."

The earliest instance of the text we found dates to Jan. 7, 2026, when the X account @ScummyMummy511 posted it along with an image seeming to show Good's car about to hit the officer.

(X user @ScummyMummy511)

As we previously reported, the user admitted the image featured in the post was generated using artificial intelligence. While federal officials described the shooting as self-defense and said Good used her vehicle to strike or threaten an ICE agent, multiple independent analyses of the available video found the SUV's front wheels turned to the right as it began moving forward and the shots were fired as the vehicle moved past the agent.

The earliest example we found linking the claim to Walz's signature was a Facebook post by Eric Chance Stone (archived). The account's description read, "Destroyer of False Narratives." Other users shared the same text, often as a screenshot of that post.

We contacted both users to ask for the source of their information and whether they meant the posts as commentary rather than a literal reflection of Minnesota law, and we'll update this article if they respond. It's worth noting that the @ScummyMummy511 X user's account had a label reading "Parody account"; it was unclear whether they meant the text in the post satirically.

What Minnesota Statutes Section 609.066 actually says

The wording that spread across social media posts does not appear in Minnesota law. 

Section 609.066 of the Minnesota Statutes, titled "Authorized use of deadly force by peace officers," defines "deadly force" as force used to cause, or that creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm, and it treats the intentional discharge of a firearm "at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be" as deadly force.

However, the statute doesn't literally say that a vehicle moving toward an officer automatically makes deadly force lawful, like the paragraph shared on social media suggests. Rather, it states the use of deadly force is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe it is necessary to protect against death or great bodily harm, emphasizing the "totality of the circumstances." 

Subdivision 2 of Minnesota Statutes Section 609.066, titled "Use of deadly force," states in full:

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that such force is necessary:

(1) to protect the peace officer or another from death or great bodily harm, provided that the threat:

(i) can be articulated with specificity;

(ii) is reasonably likely to occur absent action by the law enforcement officer; and

(iii) must be addressed through the use of deadly force without unreasonable delay; or

(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony and the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm to another person under the threat criteria in clause (1), items (i) to (iii), unless immediately apprehended.

(b) A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger the person poses to self if an objectively reasonable officer would believe, based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time and without the benefit of hindsight, that the person does not pose a threat of death or great bodily harm to the peace officer or to another under the threat criteria in paragraph (a), clause (1), items (i) to (iii).

Moreover, Minnesota Statutes Section 609.066 governs the use of deadly force by Minnesota peace officers. Minnesota's Peace Officer Standards & Training Board notes it regulates Minnesota peace officers, but "does not license or regulate standards for federal officers" such as U.S. Marshals, FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration agents, Border Patrol "or others employed by the federal government." In other words, the quoted law wouldn't be the rule governing an ICE agent such as the federal officer who killed Good.

Finally, Walz did sign a real police reform package on July 23, 2020 — the Minnesota Police Accountability Act. Among other changes, the law amended Minnesota Statute Section 609.066, Subdivision 2 ("Use of deadly force"), first passed in 1978, tightening the standard to emphasize that deadly force is justified only when an "objectively reasonable" officer would believe it is necessary, based on the totality of the circumstances and without the benefit of hindsight, and adding specific threat criteria. Those revisions took effect March 1, 2021. 

A screenshot showing how the text changed is embedded below:

(www.revisor.mn.gov)

Therefore, the reform didn't insert the phrasing shared in the posts. It revised Section 609.066 to stress an objectively reasonable standard based on the totality of the circumstances and added specific threat criteria — a framework that could apply some vehicle-related cases, although the law doesn't directly mention that scenario.

For further reading, Snopes has investigated many rumors involving Good's death, including a claim that video showed a federal officer defacing a memorial to her.