In both cases, a law enforcement officer shot and killed a civilian. One of the victims was engaged in civil protest. The other was allegedly engaged in a crime.But in only one of those cases, the one in Boston, where the victim was allegedly involved in a carjacking, is the officer who used deadly force being forced to justify his actions.Let’s start in Minneapolis.In January, Renee Good, 37, a mother of three, joined others in her Minneapolis neighborhood to oppose the heavy-handed tactics of ICE agents, who hid their faces but not their determination to grab as many people they think look like illegal immigrants, to make some arbitrary quota set by the Trump administration in its mad rush to set records for deportations, to punish a blue city in a blue state.Good’s SUV was parked in the middle of the street, though video footage showed there was enough room for other vehicles to pass.Suddenly, she was surrounded by angry ICE agents, claiming she was interfering with their lawful activities. One told her to move; another screamed at her to get out of her vehicle, tugging at her door handle. Good tried to obey that first order and drive away.And as this was going on, another ICE agent named Jonathan Ross was standing in front of Good’s vehicle, filming the encounter with his cellphone in one hand and a gun in the other.By standing in front of Good’s vehicle, while the vehicle was operating, Ross was in violation of a basic tactic in law enforcement. But, then, ICE doesn’t follow the most basic tactics in law enforcement, as they routinely violate the Fourth Amendment when it comes to search and seizures, routinely arrest US citizens and those legally entitled to be in the country, routinely beat and assault citizens opposed to their actions, and in their mad rush to hire as many ICE agents as possible to arrest as many immigrants as possible have reduced training from about five months to a matter of weeks.With about a decade of ICE experience, Ross did not have the excuse of poor training.If standing in front of Good’s vehicle was a tactical mistake, what Ross did next was far worse. As Good turned her wheels to the right and began to move forward, Ross opened fire — something that is literally illegal in Massachusetts except under certain circumstances. You don’t shoot at moving vehicles, because it puts anyone nearby at risk.With Good fatally wounded by a shot to the head, her vehicle veered out of control, smashing into a parked car and telephone pole. It could have just as easily smashed into a bystander or other ICE agents, which is precisely why shooting at moving vehicles is largely prohibited by most big city police departments, including Boston, and by some states, such as Massachusetts.Neither Ross nor any other ICE agent on scene seemed to show concern for what had happened, nor did they offer medical aid to the mortally wounded Good. In fact, a recording of the fatal encounter from Ross’s phone that the White House believes exonerates him revealed that he or another agent nearby called Good an unpublishable misogynistic obscenity moments after Ross shot and killed her.The aftermath of the ICE shooting that killed Renee Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7.DAVID GUTTENFELDER/NYTIn just about any other circumstance, Ross would have been arrested and charged with second-degree murder or manslaughter. Especially after the videos showing the deadly encounter were reviewed.But this is the Trump administration we’re talking about. Instead of immediately arresting Ross, President Trump and then Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended his actions while demonizing Good, describing her as a domestic terrorist.The feds immediately initiated what looked like a coverup, excluding Minnesota state authorities from gathering evidence in the shooting or taking part in the investigation.And rather than direct the Justice Department’s investigation of the shooting at the perpetrator, Trump’s Justice Department sought to investigate the widow of Good, the victim. Six federal prosecutors resigned rather than engage in some Orwellian victim-blaming to shield Ross from accountability.If Ross ever faces accountability, it won’t be from a federal justice system controlled by a fascist administration that never admits it or its minions are wrong.The Trump administration should be embarrassed by what Ross did. Instead, it’s protecting him.Boston Police officer Nicholas O’Malley, who was arrested Thursday and charged with manslaughter for shooting a carjacking suspect who tried to flee from police, should be so lucky.Alas, he works for a police department that for the last 26 years has trained its officers not to stand in front of or shoot into moving vehicles. Shooting into moving vehicles, unless the vehicle poses an obvious threat to the safety of the public or other officers, has been prohibited by the BPD since 2000, and outlawed in Massachusetts for several years.A little over a week ago, O’Malley shot and killed Stephenson King, 39, as King tried to flee a traffic stop in a stolen car. O’Malley told investigators he fired because he feared for the life of another officer who he thought was about to be run over.But Suffolk District Attorney Kevin Hayden and other prosecutors said video from the officers’ body cams showed that, whatever O’Malley’s perceptions were, no officers were in the path of King’s car as he tried to flee.During O’Malley’s arraignment in Roxbury Municipal Court, Assistant District Attorney Ian Polumbaum said not only did investigators determine that O’Malley’s explanation wasn’t reasonable, they concluded the officer O’Malley said he was trying to protect “was in greater danger of being struck by those bullets than he ever was by the car.”By no means is the case against O’Malley cut and dry. O’Malley pleaded not guilty and his lawyer, Ken Anderson, said body camera footage in no way is able to capture the fear O’Malley or any other officer in that situation would feel.O’Malley’s actions after the shooting, including his willingness to provide a statement to investigators rather than clam up and cite his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, showed the opposite of a consciousness of guilt: He believed what he was doing was justified.If the case goes to trial, a jury will decide whether the shooting of King was manslaughter or just a cop who overreacted in a natural, understandable state of fear.O’Malley and his supporters will take heart from other cases, including that in which an Everett police officer was exonerated in February after shooting a man who had gone on a rampage after carjacking a garbage truck.Like Jonathan Ross, Nicholas O’Malley fired several shots into a vehicle, killing its driver. Ross killed a suburban mom who was defying his authority. O’Malley killed a suspect in a carjacking in Mission Hill who was trying to evade arrest, and who police say has a record that includes assaults and firearms possession.The key difference in these two shootings is that accountability is being sought only in O’Malley’s case. In Ross’s case, the federal government is actively trying to help Ross evade accountability.In Boston, Nicholas O’Malley will be forced to explain his belief that he and his partner were in mortal danger, and perhaps even to a jury. It’s a process that big city cops have sometimes described in gallows humor: Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.Kevin Cullen is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at kevin.cullen@globe.com.