Official Minnesota ICE shooting thread

The first shot seems to happen just as he was hit and knocked him from in front of the car. What I think is most problematic is that it seems clear this shot did not kill her as the car turned more and more right after that. I have already said I did not think he should have drawn his weapon and certainly that he should not shot. But my argument has been that she was going right at him as she accelerated forward as opposed to those here saying otherwise. So I think a very bad decision by both of them. Is the first shot legally defensible if it was 0.1 seconds after she hit him and bumped him out of the way? Are the next 2 shots, which I think are what killed her, legally defensible?

You'd need to take your red cap off.

will double-check but she had some domestic violence issues in her past, not a perfect lady either....not saying ICE should have shot, but I see both sides honestly.

What is legally defensible is whether at any time he fired shots at her there was a clear risk that his life (or those of others) was in real danger. Being bumped by a car that was slow moving wouldn't meet that test. In addition to that, it isn't sufficient that the agent believed his life was seriously threatened; it would have to be a view that anyone in his circumstances would reasonably take. The videos and most of the discussion here show he hasn't met that legal test. He appears to have demonstrated a failure to perform to a level required of law enforcement and was actuated by malice (calling her a "f*cking b*tch").

Nothing in a person's past life or private life factors in whether another person was entitled to kill them. That question is resolved solely by whether her actions in the moment were a clear threat to the agent's life. That he might have seen her as challenging or provocative doesn't meet that bar. He should be charged with unlawful homicide.

Saw a little bit of video tonight of "protesters" in minnesota going cray cray. Who are these people? I did see one guy, Loser at life no doubt, get Lit up with pepper spray. That burns huh? Insurrectionists they are, not protesters. More ICE Patriots are on the way, more arrests and doses of pepper spray to the face expected. Get a real job, stop getting in ICE's way as they are arresting POS and making minnesota streets safer. Criminals like.................

Sriudorn Phaivan, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of strong-arm sodomy of a boy and strong-arm sodomy of a girl, another aggravated sex offense, nine counts of larceny, unauthorized use of a vehicle, four counts of fraud, vehicle theft, two counts of drug possession, obstructing justice, possession of stolen property, receiving stolen property, burglary and check forgery.

Tou Vang, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of sexual assault and sodomy of a girl under the age of 13, and procuring a child for prostitution

Chong Vue, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of the strong-arm rape of a 12-year-old girl, and kidnapping a child with intent to sexually assault her.

Ge Yang, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of strong-arm rape, aggravated assault with a weapon, and strangulation.

Pao Choua Xiong, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of rape and child fondling.

Kou Lor, a Laotian illegal immigrant, was convicted of rape, rape with a weapon, and sexual assault.

Hernan Cortes-Valencia, a Mexican illegal immigrant, was convicted of sexual assault of a child and DUI.

Abdirashid Adosh Elmi, a Somalian illegal immigrant, was convicted of homicide.

What a Shame! These Losers, despite being convicted for terrible crimes, were free on minnesota streets around law-abiding citizens. Not anymore. W ICE

Get the clown out. I keep reading that he should have been out on January 6, 2025. Baloney he should not have been allowed to run in 2016. As a country we are just that stupid. That is our problem...the orange clown. Like Duh!

This provides multiple videos of the whole scene. It also makes clear she was not a protester, but rather someone attempting to prevent ICE from doing their job. It exposes multiple lies which have been expressed about the situation.

Consider or ignore the opinions expressed as you wish. But this clearly shows everything leading up to the shooting. They conclude (as I do) that both she and the ICE made errors and that the shooting is problematic. But that is just their (and my) opinion.

None of this is relevant to the question as to whether the agent was entitled to kill her. That is decided solely by whether the facts showed she intended to kill him and he was required to kill her in self defence. They don't. The shooting is more than "problematic"; it is culpable homicide.

https://www.facebook.com/KevinSteeleTV/videos/patriot-punches-out-liberals/1208586374046224/

A few thoughts:

- Again, I don't think that we have proof that he was hit. Grainy video from high and far away makes it look like he might have been. But that abrupt movement you seem to see from his body could also simply be him quickly moving out of the way, and not a result of a strike. Video from behind doesn't make contact obvious. Lastly, neither does his video. The noise one hears could be any number of other things, like, his phone hitting any part of his body, his phone hitting the car, the car hitting some part of his body, or something else on his body making that noise.

- It appears true that her wheels spin a tiny amount BEFORE they're turned hard to the right. Of course, we know that she was turning the wheel hard to the right before he shot. At worst, I think likely, she put her foot on the accelerator a split-second earlier than she should have.

- I've still seen no defense for his second and/or third shots. And I think that the fact that he's clearly very capable with a pistol hurts his case. If he was far less so, one might excuse him for being rash and uncontrolled. But he's not, he's very fast and very controlled. Making the second and third shots even less defensible.

Good news: This didn't happen because he was a pathetic new ICE recruit.

Bad news: It very well may have happened because he is the kind of as*hole thug we suspect that many of these ICE "agents" are.

Renee Good was murdered.

If I told you in 2023 that you would see Maga defending a masked ICE agent shooting a 37 year old mother in the face three times in 2026 you would likely have told me that is TDS. None of that happened in Trump's first term.

Yet here we are. IN two years MAGA will be defending much worse.

Are those all horrible crimes? No doubt. Those crimes, especially those involving rape and crimes against children, are all indefensible and those people should be deported.

That said, let's deal with the problem of predators, rape & pedophilia within the GOP as well. I'mm not suggesting that aren't any Democrats that are guilty of these crimes, because there certainly are, but the problem seems to proliferate within the GOP.

https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/e/2PACX-1vTFikAP6MXDCJjWzgMIOvpsT1ji-HwO-rLEvNE8e-cfCGh0YHoZluIG5TEsmwFub7MzIDfh0XgvcWL8/pub

goppredators.wordpress.com

Republican Sexual Predators

Exposing the Corruption of the "Family Values" Party

Open link

He was hit. You can see it and hear it.

Yes - all legally defensible. The shooting should have never happened and likely speaks to the shooter's inexperience in these types of scenarios. Way too trigger happy. Having said that, it was legally justified. A car - at any speed - is several tons of metal mass that can kill. Regardless of which way her wheels were turned and whether the agent was hit or not hit, this weapon posed a threat to the agent and in the moment, justified his deadly use of force. The sad outcome is precisely why people are not (legally) allowed to use force against police. Follow the orders, don't resist arrest/detention and then handle the inequity in court or with the agency as needed. Like it or not, that's the law. Use of force by citizens only begets use of force by police.

Re: the # of shots fired: the analysis does not revolve around how many shots were fired and it will not matter which shot killed her, especially when they are in close succession as they were here. When officers shoot, they shoot to neutralize the threat and kill.

Why were the agents even there to begin with? Why were they ordering her out of the car as opposed to slowing things down and just dealing with the minor inconvenience she posed by blocking traffic? Should he have even had his gun out in the first place? Separate questions that should be answered, but from a baseline legal analysis, a sadly justified shoot.

I appreciate that you're trying to be reasonable here, but if you're trying to exercise as much caution and care as possible, you should also consider:

1. He was probably violating procedure by placing himself in a position to be run over in the first place-- i.e. in front of the vehicle.

2. To say the she was using the car as a weapon (key to everything else you say here), you're implying something about her intention, for which there would need to be clear evidence. The visual evidence-- mainly, that she was steering the vehicle away from the cop-- suggests much more directly that she was attempting to escape rather than run anyone over (as does the fact that another cop was pulling at her door handle and reaching into her vehicle).

3. She was not breaking any criminal law, or directly threatening the cops, simply by trying to slow down their operations. And, the cops were not engaged in the enforcement of criminal law at the time. (Being undocumented is NOT a criminal offence even if the people the cops are trying to apprehend are later proved to have criminal records. That's just not how it works, which is why no one has been criminally charged simple for getting in ICE's way.

4. Even if the cop momentarily perceived that she had weaponized the car against him, he was entitled to use only the force necessary to defend his safety or the safety of the public. In the case of the use of a firearm to do this, each of his shots fired would HAVE to be evaluated in terms of his obligation to use proportionate force. (For example, a cop in direct confrontation with subject can shoot them once, or enough times to neutralize the threat, and no more. He can't , for example, walk over to their inert body shoot them again, execution style. The initial threat is not a justification for further shots after the threat has been removed). Clearly, the second two shots (quite likely the lethal ones, fired at super close range, with the vehicle perpendicular and moving away from him) would be extremely had to justify as defensive in nature.

5. The cop's state of mind at the time of the shooting would also be relevant here. The fact that the first words out of his mouth as the car moved away were "fvcking bytch", as opposed to a natural expression of shock by someone who thought he'd almost been killed, and had then killed someone himself, would strongly suggest, in addition to the fact the shots were fired through the side window, that he had other motives besides self-defense.

These are all things that would come up in the context of a proper investigation-- one you seemed to agree should take place.

If this guy were ever charged, and had to face judgement by a jury of his peers, I think he'd be in very big trouble. I mean just imagine what a jury would think once they heard about his personal politics, which are very ugly all by all accounts (to normal people, that is).