Since the recent shooting death of a Minnesota woman, Renee Good, by an ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, there has been a flood of high-profile political and social responses, from the early conclusions by federal officials to the growing number of protests—and even more recently, to the mass resignation of prosecutors. The news has been emotionally overwhelming to many and doesn’t seem to be subsiding.

Among officer-involved shootings, this one has an unprecedented amount of video evidence of what happened. Although full interpretations still vary, it seems clear that Good had turned her wheels away from Ross prior to the shooting (Inal et al., 2026; Lum et al., 2026; Stein et al., 2026). Less clear is whether Ross noticed the turning prior to the shooting.

Even so, many in the federal government have pointed the finger at Good, claiming that she was engaged in “an act of domestic terrorism” and framing Ross’ actions as “defensive.” Thus, what I want to add to the discussion is some of the psychology of victim-blaming: what drives it, and what we can do in response.

Psychology of Victim-Blaming

There are four known causes of victim-blaming, including politics (Stalder, 2022). The politics of this moment are undoubtedly intense.

But those in the Trump administration who are blaming Good for her own death are, like anyone, individuals who make decisions not only for political reasons but also for personal psychological ones (whether consciously or less-than-consciously). Is it possible that even individuals with so much power can feel guilt or cognitive dissonance when a presumed-innocent bystander gets caught up in the effects of their decisions?

Even members of the powerful elite are still human beings, and most are likely capable of such feelings. And unfortunately, one of the ways to reduce any dissonance over the suffering of a presumed-innocent victim is victim-blaming, especially when one’s own actions or the actions of those one supports may have contributed to the suffering (Stalder, 2018, 2025).

There’s plenty of research on how individuals with different preconceived beliefs can look at ambiguous stimuli and draw different conclusions. But the video evidence does not seem ambiguous in refuting, at the least, the initial official claims that Good rammed or ran over Ross with her car (Inal et al., 2026; Lum et al., 2026; Stein et al., 2026). Some of those insisting otherwise, in terms of social and political psychology, may be falling prey to groupthink or group-centrism (Janis, 1982; Kruglanski et al., 2006).

For some to say Good brought the outcome on herself, then, is psychologically unsurprising. But other aspects of this situation are surprising, both from a psychological and legal perspective: It’s unusual, for example, for federal officials to cite “domestic terrorism” within just hours of an event (Uribe and Sherman, 2026), or to forego a standard civil-rights investigation of a shooting in favor of investigating the victim and her widow (Londoño, 2026; Richer and Tucker, 2026).

The “wave of resignations from top prosecutors” over the investigatory decisions, in both Minnesota and Washington, D.C., further illustrates how far things have come (Londoño, 2026; Nawaz and Adams, 2026). Even some conservative voices are questioning the victim-blaming narrative (Dorn, 2026).

Ways to Reduce Victim-Blaming

As protests continue and tensions rise, it’s worth examining the strategies we can use to reduce victim-blaming tendencies.

If the victim-blaming occurs due to dissonance over one’s involvement in a negative outcome, there are multiple ways to reduce dissonance (McGrath, 2017; Stalder, 2025) that don’t involve victim-blaming. For example, one can try to find other people or factors to share the blame for one’s decisions that contributed to the outcome. One can also use information about the situation in vowing to avoid that outcome the next time.

If one is not at all responsible for the outcome but is feeling distress at watching what happened, or has just-world beliefs that are feeling threatened, one can reduce victim-blaming by sharing one’s negative feelings with someone else (Harber et al., 2015). One can also carry out a self-affirmation involving reflecting on and writing down positive characteristics about oneself (Loseman and Kees van den Bos, 2012).

We can also take steps to address what’s known as the fundamental attribution error (FAE), a cognitive bias in which we tend to overemphasize the influence of others’ personality and character while downplaying the influence of outside forces or systems. There are numerous ways to achieve this, starting with slowing down judgment and waiting for more information (Stalder, 2018). Even President Trump appears to have backed off from his initial conclusions about Good and the shooting after learning more about Good’s parents (Patil, 2026).

Reducing cognitive load can also help—so if one is extremely busy and juggling a lot of responsibilities, try to find a pocket of less busyness before deciding how much the victim was to blame. Mindfulness practices can help, which can include trying to be more comfortable with uncertainty by acknowledging that we cannot always know right away the truth of a situation.

Many Americans who are peacefully protesting and expressing concerns about ICE on social media may already feel they know the truth of what happened to Good. Some protestors may be purposefully avoiding the all-too-common response to perceived injustice of staying silent. Although there may be benefits in everyone stepping back and considering the FAE-reducing suggestions above, I am not directing these suggestions at peaceful protestors or mourners in this moment.