Official Minnesota ICE shooting thread

Equals wrote:

reallybroreally wrote:

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?

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.

SB wrote:

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).

Keeping it real wrote:

reallybroreally wrote:

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?

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.

Keeping it real wrote:

All good points when looking at this particular officer's conduct. But most don't matter in terms of whether the shooting was legally justified.

1. Not likely and even if so, the driver has a legal obligation to stop and not pose a threat.

2. No intention (or non-intention) implied. It does not matter whether she had demons in her eyes and wanted to run him down or whether she was turning away from him (see my earlier post) and trying to drive away as it appears in the video. Did the car and the person driving it pose a danger to the officer that justified his use of deadly force in the moment? That's the only legal question.

3. At a minimum, she was driving recklessly. Maximum - she was assaulting an agent with her car. Not to mention delaying law enforcement activity. Does not make any of it morally right, but these are the facts.

4. # of shots not an issue when fired in such close succession. If he was justified in using deadly force with one trigger pull, he could also do so with 3 (or 6 or the entire clip) so long as the danger still existed. Agree that a break in time would change this but that's not what happened here.

5. It does not matter what "other motives" this particular agent had or what crude, distasteful things he said before, during or after the shooting so long as a reasonable agent under the same or similar circumstances would've also been justified in using deadly force. That's really all it comes down to.

I do agree with you that a jury might vote with their hearts and not necessarily their minds on this and convict the agent because of all the polarizing issues involved and the fact that he was way too quick on the trigger. But you and I both know that at the federal level at least, no such case will ever see a courtroom or jury.

Keeping it real wrote:

All good points when looking at this particular officer's conduct. But most don't matter in terms of whether the shooting was legally justified.

1. Not likely and even if so, the driver has a legal obligation to stop and not pose a threat.

2. No intention (or non-intention) implied. It does not matter whether she had demons in her eyes and wanted to run him down or whether she was turning away from him (see my earlier post) and trying to drive away as it appears in the video. Did the car and the person driving it pose a danger to the officer that justified his use of deadly force in the moment? That's the only legal question.

3. At a minimum, she was driving recklessly. Maximum - she was assaulting an agent with her car. Not to mention delaying law enforcement activity. Does not make any of it morally right, but these are the facts.

4. # of shots not an issue when fired in such close succession. If he was justified in using deadly force with one trigger pull, he could also do so with 3 (or 6 or the entire clip) so long as the danger still existed. Agree that a break in time would change this but that's not what happened here.

5. It does not matter what "other motives" this particular agent had or what crude, distasteful things he said before, during or after the shooting so long as a reasonable agent under the same or similar circumstances would've also been justified in using deadly force. That's really all it comes down to.

I do agree with you that a jury might vote with their hearts and not necessarily their minds on this and convict the agent because of all the polarizing issues involved and the fact that he was way too quick on the trigger. But you and I both know that at the federal level at least, no such case will ever see a courtroom or jury.