Official Minnesota ICE shooting thread

American Gestapo...lol. Get the bumper sticker or t-shirt yet?

You have already had a civil war. The US has long been a violent nation. It only took an attack on Fort Sumter to initiate the last one; a similar spark will ignite the next one. Trump will light it by sending in federal troops.

The Gestapo were secret police who acted extrajudicially to attack opponents of the regime without legal accountability. That is also ICE.

And, yes, their leader is an adjudicated sex offender and was a close friend to child rapists.

The woman killed was not like a member of ISIS or Hamas, Boko Harum or any other heavily-armed terrorist. She was an unarmed unaggressive American housewife trying to drive away from an ICE agent determined to shoot her (who was incidentally nowhere near US borders - and border control is what his role was supposed to be, not attacks on American citizens inside the heartland ). How is anybody debating whether she deserved to die?

Quick Google search. Plenty of American Gestapo t-shirts out there so you can be in with your lib friends.

I would never suggest that they didn’t escalate it. I would suggest that this is a situation like many that everyone involved should consider incredibly volatile. Officers have a hard job for many reasons, one of which being that they have to deal with people who are irrational and reckless (sometimes to the point of being mentally ill and directly violent). That is why discipline is important for officers and training for various things is important, among them taking measures to deescalate and to ensure everyone’s safety. That is why they are granted the force necessary to deal with situations that are out of hand but also why they are entrusted with doing everything they can to ensure that things don’t get out of hand.

You also have to understand how tricky it can get to apply “imagination” to the proceedings. That’s very likely to be a source of certain people on each side of this issue confirming their priors rather than making more probabilistic inferences from facts.

I appreciate the “support … in line with policy” point, although I’m of the opinion that he could do both at the same time (or is that exercising too much imagination for you).

Cool. He might then be one of the 3000-6000 people to buy one, while you and your buddies here try to act as though that’s what 40 million of your fellow Americans are like.

You can add the t-shirts to the rest of your Nazi regalia.

Thanks for the info. What is happening with his feet from that moment through the next second or so?

He fired his weapon. What was the severity of his injuries? If he had not fired his weapon, what would the severity of his injuries have been?

its difficult. at 53 the car is reversing and JR is obscure. at the start of 54 the car is statinary but starts to move forward and his gun is coming out. so there is an argument that the decision to draw was taken when the car was reversing, and the actual drawing started before the car moved forward. but again its so fast im ont sure what the rlevance is.

the first shot appears to be in the 54 second area as well. at 55 its all over.

its just too fast.

the crazy thing is JR shoots through the windshield when a part of his colleagues body (his hand) is actually inside the car.

also in 54 oyu can see JR move his right foot to the cars left, so maybe he was still trying to get out of the way?

You say “it’s just too fast.” Yes, once the car moves, things happen very quickly. Some people here have fixated on the exact position of the vehicle’s wheels at the instant the car is put in drive. I’d say that a few other factors override that concern, and they are based on what the officer and the driver would know.

The driver knows that she has backed up with her wheel cranked to the left, which angles her car away from the direction. The officer has been walking into the side opposite the one he is near at the front of her vehicle. At the point of stopping her reverse, she goes handover hand to crank her wheel to the right and turn her wheels to the right. She may very well, not know the exact position of her wheels on the pavement at that moment, just that she has cranked her steering wheel to the right. This to me indicates a mindset to drive up to the right and away. That she has chosen to do so when her partner screams drive is an indication of recklessness rather than intent to harm. So that becomes a reputation of all the people who say she intended to harm him. It does not absolve her of all responsibility.

Another would be with the officer can see. We have a likely inference about that based on where his eyes would be trained, which is up on the driver. I seriously doubt at that distance and that angle and with the other things occupying his attention he would be looking at her wheels. that is a point at least roughly corroborated by the cell phone video, which is trained on the driver at that point. That shows the driver engaging in exactly those actions I describe above. To me those actions strongly depict her intent of by driving up to her right and the officer’s left.

I would expect it by the time she is midway through her reverse point it would look too an officer in that position as though she’s going to attempt to flee to his left. I would think that would certainly be further confirmed, or at least become clear even to somebody a little bit slower to perceive, at the moment she cranks her wheel to the right. That’s when I would believe a person would process a thought like ”she’s trying to get away.” Ideally, that would involve him moving in that instant prior to where we agree, as you have said, things happen very fast.

And this is borne out by the path the vehicle then traverses. It is angled much more sharply right than it is in the direction of the officer. And that follows as a logical consequence from what the officer was most likely to have seen in the seconds leading up to it moving forward.

Again, I can’t weigh in directly on whether the officer should be deemed responsible because I don’t know his direct training. I just know that there is training for officers to not stand in front of vehicles, because departments specifically want to avoid this or similar kinds of situations.

And that’s why I think it’s preposterous for anyone to try to lump together broad perspectives questioning the officer’s actions as “lies.”

Another would be with the officer can see. We have a likely inference about that based on where his eyes would be trained, which is up on the driver. I seriously doubt at that distance and that angle and with the other things occupying his attention he would be looking at her wheels. that is a point at least roughly corroborated by the cell phone video, which is trained on the driver at that point. That shows the driver engaging in exactly those actions I describe above. To me those actions strongly depict her intent of by driving up to her right and the officer’s left.

There is no way JR could see her front tires from where he was standing. Stand several feet in front of your own car and see what you can see. You can only see the tire position from much further back (if you look down) or from the side.

It is unbelievable that there is endless debate here about whether an unarmed housewife who declared she wasn't angry with the agent was at the same time intending to take his life. The only person intent on taking life was the ICE agent. There was no justification for it. That so many of you seek to excuse or justify his act of homicide shows how far you have degenerated as a civilized society.

Agreed.

Operative phrase might be “standing in front of the car.” He wasn’t standing. He was moving around the entire time and capturing video evidence. He happened to be caught in a position such that he was grazed when the other ICE officers approached the driver side door and asked her to get out, which she failed to comply with.

Perhaps it would’ve been better for all had he been just standing directly in front of the car. She may not have felt like could’ve just floored it at that point or, perhaps, he should’ve just taken the direct hit, because then everyone would exonerate his act as defensible and justified. Even if he was severely injured or killed. Especially if. On second thought, progressives like ArmstrongLibs would still find fault with him.

She was not peaceably assembling, she was impeding a Federal operation parked perpendicularly in the street, she refused to comply w LEO’s orders at that point, and she put another LEO’s life in danger. A guy who had been previously dragged. “Housewives” de-risk for the sake of their kids. They don’t put themselves in situations where they can be taken from their kids (though this one appears to have lost custody of previous children).

My wife is a housewife. She wouldn’t be caught “dead” at an anti-ICE rally or a J6 protest. Because she’s not an idiot.

He had been moving counter-clockwise around the car, which entailed him proceeding from her right to her left in the moment leading up to her pulling the vehicle away, again, meaning that he was moving in the direction away from the direction she had been pointing the car. My “standing” may not be your preferred term for whatever pause he was at.

it definitely would’ve been better for everybody if he had just moved two other feet in the direction he had been moving while she was backing up.

But sure, a second best option to that might have been positioned directly at the center of where she was headed, which would almost certainly have made her reluctant to floor it.

it’s a terrible situation, and yes, “housewife” is a fairly useless detail from the other poster

After all your well-reasoned, yet largely legally incorrect points, now you resort to being petty? This belies objectivity. Too bad.

Please understand that my analysis is simply from a legal justification viewpoint, which asks whether an agent in the same or similar circumstances would be legally allowed to use deadly force? Nothing more and nothing less. For the most part, it does not (and actually can't) speak to the subjective intent of the actors under this objective standard. My "acumen" is over a decade of reviewing officer involved shootings fwiw.

My personal opinion as to whether this was an appropriate reaction by the agent in this instance is pretty apparent from my earlier posts. Just trying to keep it real.

I do not know enough to say whether or when these things don’t matter (potentially contra your “always” — the apparent KIR point).

But if we grant that these things matter, they matter only to the extent that they can be established/determined. And those tend to be much more difficult arguments to make than ones deriving from other facts.