Did the Honda Pilot actually strike the officer—and how do disputed “contact” claims reshape public judgment and accountability?

In this conversation, Rick Rosner dissects video details in the fatal shooting of Renée Nicole Good, arguing the Honda Pilot likely did not strike the ICE officer and warning against self-created “vehicle threat” narratives, along with qualified-immunity concerns and hard party-line polarization nationwide. He recounts his bizarre Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? history—an invalidated “Fastest Finger” and a $16,000 question with no correct choice—leading to a lawsuit while he worked for ABC. Scott Douglas Jacobsen then draws out Rosner’s rumination habits, his push/pull workout split, and his forecast of robots, muscle-stimulation gimmicks, and gene editing making fitness increasingly optional.

Rick Rosner: I was looking at the front end of the Honda Pilot—the SUV Renée Nicole Good was driving when she was fatally shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis—because there is an ongoing debate. According to a national poll of likely voters conducted January 9–11, 2026, about 52% said the shooting was not justified, 36% said it was justified, and 12% said they did not know. These views also break down sharply along party lines, with Democrats overwhelmingly saying the shooting was unjustified and about two-thirds of Republicans saying it was justified.

One central issue in the debate is whether the vehicle actually struck the officer. From my reading of the footage, it does not appear to have done so, although that is an interpretation. The officer appeared close to the front of the vehicle and seemed to be leaning into it. I do not know the precise law or departmental procedure, but officers are not supposed to position themselves in front of a vehicle in a way that creates a situation later used to justify lethal force.

At the time, the officer was holding a phone in his left hand and a gun in his right. At one point, it appeared that he braced himself with his left hand against the hood. The question then becomes whether contact initiated by the officer counts as being struck by the vehicle. That is unclear. As the car turned away, the remaining factual question is whether the left front corner of the car contacted his left leg.

I examined the Honda Pilot’s front-end design to assess this. Most modern passenger vehicles have rounded front ends, unlike many pickup trucks. Honda’s front corners are fairly rounded, which would make a sharp corner impact less likely. The vehicle was also turning away, so even if contact occurred, it would likely have slid past him rather than striking or lifting him.

You asked whether this incident could lead to changes in front-end vehicle design. I do not think so. Vehicles are already designed with rounded fronts for aerodynamic efficiency, maneuverability, and easier parking. My own car, a 2012 Toyota Camry, has similarly rounded front edges. Rotten tomatoes.

I expect to argue this extensively with Lance on Sunday. Based on our phone conversation, I assume he will take the MAGA/ICE position that the officer was struck and that the shooting was justified. I will argue the opposite—anyway—rotten tomatoes.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the craziest thing that has ever happened to you? A WTF moment.

Rosner: I have had several intense experiences. The whole millionaire episode was particularly striking, although it unfolded over time rather than as a single moment.

Jacobsen: Which, right now, is not a single moment for the narrative.

Rosner: I worked very hard to get onto Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? I actually made it onto the show twice. The first time, I did not make it into the hot seat. There was a technical issue during “Fastest Finger,” and the question that might have gotten me there was thrown out. I believe Regis Philbin misread the question, but I cannot be certain. In any case, the question was invalidated, and that ended that appearance.

I later returned to the show and this time made it into the hot seat. On the $16,000 question, they asked something for which the correct answer was not among the available choices. Their researchers and writers had made an error. I sent extensive correspondence explaining the problem. This was not unprecedented—errors like this had happened multiple times before my appearance and a few times afterward. At the time I was on the show, more contestants had been removed from the hot seat because of production errors than had won the million-dollar prize.

I wrote to them repeatedly and called them. Before the statute of limitations expired—I believe it was one year—I filed a lawsuit. On a multiple-choice quiz show, the correct answer should exist among the choices. The situation was especially absurd because I am meticulous about this sort of thing. I reviewed approximately 110,000 Millionaire questions from versions of the show across more than thirty countries to confirm that my interpretation was correct. It was. They disagreed and hired expensive lawyers.

The situation became even stranger because Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? was an ABC show, and I was working for ABC while suing them. That combination of circumstances makes it one of the strangest things I have ever been involved in. Other experiences might rival it, but none come to mind immediately.

Jacobsen: Are you someone who gets over things quickly, or do you have trouble processing them afterward?

Jacobsen: Here is some context. In high school, I was very driven. I joined many clubs, aimed for high grades, and even attempted sports, unsuccessfully. Around that time, a book called Type A Behaviour and Your Heart was published. Research from the late 1970s suggested that certain personality types—what they called Type A—were more prone to heart attacks due to chronic stress and agitation.

I read the book while taking a speed-reading class at night. I was constantly trying to earn additional credits for my transcript. At one point, the book included a self-assessment titled “Are You Type A?” I met every criterion except one. The question I failed was whether I dwell on past events and wish I could redo them.

I was only seventeen at the time. I did not have that much in my life to redo. But since then, yes, I have thought a great deal about what happened to me and wished I could redo it. That kind of thinking feeds directly into my writing.

I am working on a near-future novel in which virtual-reality utilities allow people to redo parts of their lives, not in reality but in simulation. You can replay events you dislike, try different choices, and see how they turn out. You can repeat the process multiple times.

Of course, the outcomes depend on how the simulation decides events will unfold. You cannot perfectly replicate reality. You can also manipulate the simulation itself. If you do not like an outcome, you can alter the parameters and try again. So yes, this idea is very much part of how I think.

I do not get over things easily. That said, the Millionaire incident occurred around 2000, roughly a year before 9/11. The rest of the twenty-first century has put getting a bad question on a quiz show into perspective. Far worse things have happened in the world since then.

If this had occurred five years later, I would not have pursued a lawsuit. That period coincided with the rise of reality competition shows, where arbitrary outcomes became normalized—people being voted off, judges making subjective decisions, and unfairness becoming part of the format. By then, expectations of fairness had already eroded.

Had this happened in 2006, I would have expected far less sympathy from a court. I did not receive especially fair treatment as it was, but by that point, a judge might have said that if you go on television, you accept the risk that the process will not be fair.

Rotten tomatoes. Look at Officer Ross versus Renée Good. There is a significant chance that, given the FBI’s leadership and its takeover of the investigation, she will not receive justice. There is a real possibility that a compromised investigation will conclude the officer was justified, even though he fired three shots.

The final two shots were almost certainly unjustified. There is also the possibility that the first shot killed her. We do not know. That uncertainty allows room for a finding of justification, even though I do not believe it was justified.

In some policing doctrines, officers are instructed to continue firing if a suspect is still moving and capable of causing harm. I do not know whether this remains the current policy, but the logic has been that if a threat is not neutralized, continued force is considered justified. This is evaluated through the lens of qualified immunity, which looks at whether other officers in similar situations would have acted the same way.

The basic principle is that an officer is responsible for every shot fired, including the consequences of each shot. If the first shot clearly killed her, and that can be established, the legal analysis changes. It is still unclear whether all three shots even struck her; no public disclosure has clarified that yet.

If the first shot were fatal, then subsequent shots would have been fired after death. I do not know the precise legal doctrine, but shooting a person who is already dead is not treated as murder, because the person is no longer alive. That does not make it just, but it affects how the law categorizes responsibility.

If the first shot was not fatal and the second or third shots caused her death, then those shots could potentially constitute murder. I do not know which shot, if any, was conclusively fatal. What I do believe is that the officer is responsible for each shot individually if the later shots are found to be unjustified.

There are several paths by which she may not receive justice. One is a finding that the first shot killed her and that it cannot be proven to be unjustified. In that scenario, even if the second and third shots were unjustified, they would legally be treated as shots fired at someone already dead. That outcome would be profoundly unfair, but it may be legally possible. Rotten tomatoes.

Jacobsen: How do you rotate your workouts? What do you train?

Rosner: For a while, I did everything every day, and that was not working. Now I alternate push and pull days. One day is a push day—chest and bench work. The next day is a pull day, focusing on biceps and some back, although I do not train back extensively.

People who take it very seriously often use a three-day rotation: push, pull, and legs. They may run two of those cycles and then take a day off. I do not follow that approach. Rotten tomatoes.

Jacobsen: What is the future of manual labour, fitness, and necessity as we move forward?

Rosner: Those are two different questions.

Jacobsen:  The future of a world with ten billion humanoid robots.

Rosner: In eighty years, we will be surrounded by robots capable of doing almost anything we want them to do. Human labour may become largely artisanal—digging a ditch or planting a garden because you want to, not because you have to. You will not be required to do it. You could have robot gardeners instead.

There may still be specialized situations where it is easier to have a human do the work, but much physical labour has already been made optional for a century. People will still want to look good and stay fit, though the specific exercise may change.

There are already automated exercise devices. Some involve electrical stimulation belts that trigger muscle contractions without conscious effort. They shock the muscles into contracting repeatedly. That strikes me as a poor substitute for real exercise and more of a gimmick than a meaningful improvement. I doubt it genuinely makes exercise easier.

In the future, genetic interventions may change this entirely. There could be genetic tweaks that keep people strong and muscular as a baseline physical condition. Someone once pointed out that dogs do not need to work out. They are naturally muscular due to their genetics. Humans, by contrast, have to exercise to stay in shape. Many mammals appear to be physically fit by default.

It is plausible that future gene-editing techniques—perhaps something like a CRISPR-based intervention—could allow people to look like bodybuilders or dancers without deliberate physical training. At the same time, many people may live most of their lives in cyberspace. Their physical bodies might be largely inactive, lying in chairs or storage, while their minds operate virtually for long stretches each day.

Two hundred years from now, people might even place their bodies into cryonic storage and live virtually because it is cheaper or more convenient. They might keep their bodies preserved for sentimental reasons or as a contingency in case virtual civilization collapses and physical existence becomes necessary again.

Science fiction often explores this idea. Imagine being a movie star in the year 2143 and wanting to maximize your market value. Between projects, you could enter cold storage while your representatives negotiate contracts. Film projects already take years—sometimes a decade—to move from script to production. Instead of aging during that time, a performer could be stored until filming begins.

Of course, this would compete with other technologies, such as the ability to digitally simulate younger versions of actors, eliminating concerns about aging altogether. Still, there may be reasons people choose physical storage. There will also be many ways to remain fit and attractive without spending an hour a day exercising, if that is what someone wants.

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

Photo by Tom Barrett on Unsplash

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.