This will be out Megathread in relation the ICE shooting which occurred in Minneapolis on the morning of January 7th.
Numerous stories can be found throughout the media right now, here is a link to one:
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/minnesota-fraud-state-reps-testify-01-07-26
Reminder - This is a law enforcement sub. Law enforcement actions - things like OIS protocol, justification, investigation, follow up, controlling civil unrest, and so on - are all valid topics for discussion here.
The underlying political activities at play here are NOT law enforcement, and if your goal is to talk about those - on any side - you're in the wrong sub. There's an excellent chance you'll be temporary removed so that healthy LE related conversation can continue.
As always - all dialogue must be mature, fact based, and reasoned. Attacking other people is not permitted.
At this time, about two days in, we've locked this megathread.
Most of the people who wanted to have reasoned dialogue have done so, and the most of the last/recent comments are just trolls pecking around the edges.
As is always the case, we'll start a new one for notable or significant developments.
Regardless of what comes out expect days off canceled again…
Minneapolis PD about to be stretched thin
I mean, what do they have right now? 600ish?
Before 2020 they had like 800 and already claimed to be understaffed.
618 is the number I heard floated around. All I know is I wouldn’t want to be working there, especially now
I'm happy to be a firefighter right now.
There are still dumbasses that attack firefighters, because they wear badges sometimes.
And that's why we have cops.
BSI Scene Safe. I'll be in the Taco Bell parking lot till they secure the scene.
Until morale improves lol
Might be a Starks V. Enyart case. The question is did the agents create their own exigency by placing themselves in the path of the vehicle. I guess we’ll see. I’m curious to see what the core transaction was that led them to try and detain the driver in the first place.
The officer clearly steps in front of the vehicle while it is in reverse, creating the dangerous situation for himself, which was one of the central deciding factors for denying qualified immunity in Starks v. Enyart. It's conceivable that the driver didn't even see the officer that shot her because she could have been looking at the officer at her door or behind her while in reverse. No matter how you slice it, this is bad practice by the officer.
I agree. He was in no man’s land. Should have seen the danger of his position and adjusted. I don’t think she was trying to hit him. I think she was trying to flee.
Allegedly, she was told to leave by other ICE Agents.
One definitely tells her to stop and tries to grab the door, but if it's true she was told to leave, can we really fault her for panicking?
Same problem as damn near every felony stop, too many cooks in the kitchen giving directions. It’s one of the areas of training that I see given the least amount of attention. 1 voice giving commands.
I watch Fridays With Frank, a cop out in Arizona. It's usually just traffic stuff, but every once in awhile there's a felony stop.
His agency, from everything I see, does really well at having one person take charge. I'm sure some of that is the fact that he's mic'd up and other officers/deputies aren't, so we hear him more, but they have crisp felony stops.
Every ICE stop I've seen looks like a carjacking more than any real police operation.
That’s awesome! I see more of it shifting towards that, but I also see agencies just bodily rush a car after a felony stop all yelling commands at the same time. Shits rough.
https://youtu.be/Ou-EvIG7D9o?si=uTzhiyZcf9644bBM
Some other guy gave commands, and then as soon as Frank takes control, everyone else shuts up and lets him do the commands.
[removed]
Not irrelevant, but not as cut and dry and you want it to be. I've had training scenarios with cars driving at me. Many of the bullets fired hit the side of the car because it takes a moment to perceive a threat and react, and human reaction can be slower than the time it takes for a threat to appear and then end.
I've had a real world experience of a car reversing at me beijg driven by a kidnapping suspect. If my gun was in my hand I would have fired. But in the time it took me to realize the car was going to hit me, I couldn't draw my gun fast enough. Then the car swerved. And by the time I realized there was no longer a threat, I hadn't even drawn my gun yet. Reality happens fast.
I’m not saying it was. Regardless, his justification was the fact the car was moving at him. I’m just adding the context of relevant case law
Edit: be outraged. That’s fine. Nothing in the aforementioned text is intended to say this was justified. It’s intended to say that he’s using that as his excuse, and here’s the case law that covers it. Use that and make up your own minds.
This was 100% my first thought when I saw the video. We’ll see what led up to the incident, but on initial viewing, to me, it sure as hell looked like he put himself in that position.
[deleted]
He went around the car and stood in front of it. Not sure what sort of law enforcement tactics that is.
The car that turned in reverse and pulled out while turn. Kinda hard to know where to stand...
Avoiding the front or the back of the vehicle is what most people with common sense default to.
We could just wait for the facts to come out or we could find the boston bomber again.
Not a LEO but I do pay attention.
I'm glad to see an informed and nuanced take is well upvoted here.
As far I'm concerned this is the inevitable result of a long train of stupid decisions. Politicians were stupid to let it get to this point. She was stupid for putting herself in that position. And the agent was stupid for putting himself in front of the vehicle. With a lot more stupid in between.
Now everyone's going to pay for that stupid. She's dead, the agent's life is now going to be something between Derek Chauvin and Darren Wilson. Best guess closer to Chauvin. Politicians will have to pander more. And we all get to deal with another round of riots though I think the cold will temper it this time.
Edit: Thinking about it a bit more. I don't know what would happen if state LE decides to arrest the federal agent. They have the authority but the clash between state and federal political/prosecutorial entities on this would be rather new for us as a nation.
Just feeling for the folks in Minneapolis who are about to deal with this.
Does anyone know what happened before the shooting? I mean like why they were trying to get her out?
I saw another video (can't find source at the moment) that shows a few more seconds before the shooting. In that video it appears the officers wave another car through, in front of the one involved in the shooting, which remains stopped. The person driving the car who was shot then appears to wave at officers, seeming to indicate they intend (or maybe are looking for clearance) to pull ahead too. Immediately after, you see the officer begin running up to the driver's window. It certainly does not seem as if the driver was being pursued and it's not clear to me when they realize they are being stopped/detained.
I just watched that one. It does look like she is waving them forward to go around. I stand corrected. It looked different from the shorter videos. I appreciate everyone just stating their points and actually discussing it instead of getting all crazy about it.
You can literally hear her say “go around” when they stop out of the car to engage her.
ICE claims she was blocking them. Meanwhile a few seconds before the shooting they drove past her. The officer who shot her was one of the people who drove past her.
Not a good shooting at all.
Dude is most likely going to jail.
This was, in my opinion, probably not a good shoot. If it somehow is, it certainly does not look good.
Edit: Well, I will eat crow. Looks like this will be a justified use of force, but the optics are still terrible.
https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/2009682748563481061?s=20
Bet he put himself in front of her car, creating the exigent circumstances justifying (to him) the shoot.
Bad shoot.Eh. Saw second and third angle. (how the hell are there three angles?!?)
Justified shoot but not a great look.
Which video convinced you it was justified? Not disagreeing, just curious.
The camera that was furthest to the left. I couldn't see the third officer (shooter) in the angle I initially saw.
Here's the suspect's problem:
She backs up when the officer grabs her door handle and tells her to get out of the car. SHE TURNS THE WHEEL, then puts the car into drive.
At that point, all bets are off. You can't prove her intent, and the officer that shot froze for a second. (I would too. Which way is she going?) Shots fired.
But at the same time, shooting the driver isnt gonna stop you from getting ran over, if its driving in your direction. I've looked into this, and apparently no department teaches you to stand in front of a vehicle. Actually discourages it, because it needlessly puts you in danger and creates situations like these
Fair point, it’s not like the officer has time to look down at the direction the wheel is pointed in.
I think it’s a sad situation that everyone is going to spin for their own interests. But the reality is two people panicked and this happened.
Yes, but the issue is this: you can't control how the public will react. What you can control is the cops you choose to hire. That's why the current ICE/BP hiring frenzy with reduced standards is destined to be an absolute disaster. This is almost certainly just the beginning.
If you watch the extended video clip you'll see he nonchalantly approaches from the rear, goes on the passenger side, then legitimately just walks right in front of the car. It's not like he incidentally just got out of his Tahoe and happened to be standing there.
There's still a solid chance it was technically lawful, but the lack of apparent competency is just astounding.
His feet were planted on the ground outside of the path of the vehicle and was already safe when he fired his first shot through the windshield. He fires the next two shots through the open driver side window, an angle he couldn't have if he was in any danger.
There is video from further away and above that people have used some kind of BS upscaling or AI to enhance that people are arguing shows he hit her. But those tend to blend things together, and in the unenhanced video you can clearly see he is behind the car from the camera's view, which again proves he was already out of harms way.
Not saying it was a good shoot, but you can't ignore human reaction time in these scenarios. It's no different than officers firing a few too many rounds after an armed subject stops being a threat.
From the exact moment the threat is over to the exact moment the officer recognizes the threat is over, their will always be a delay.
Of course this is only one element to look at. Theres a lot more going on in this one that needs to be analyzed.
He pulled his gun while she was in reverse, and fired the first shot as he was to the side of the car. There is a picture of the bullet hole in the window. It is near the edge of the windshield. So the bullet had to travel at an angle (when he is to the side of the car) for it to hit her.
That was the first shot. How anyone can defend this is insane to me.
It all about perspective. For example, this video shows him standing in front of thr vehicle and getting struck by it.
https://x.com/Morblius/status/2008966460652310595?ct=rw-null
Even then, it's not outright justified. But it can't be ignored. Imagine if he were someone you cared about. Wouldn't you want people to take everything into consideration and let authorities gather all the facts before just deciding he's guilty? And I'm saying that as someone who thinks he probably is. But probably isnt good enough when we start talking about a murder conviction.
The problem I have is that I counted 3? shots? I think one in the windshield and then 2 more in the open window. The one in the windshield I could kind of justify since he’s in front of the vehicle while it turns. The ones in the window as she is passing by? No. And that’s what I think killed her.
I agree actually. First shot is good to go. The next 2 aren't.
All bets are NOT off.
Firing rounds has no impact on the threat of a moving vehicle.
This shooting is fundamentally impossible to justify based purely on the fact that the lethal force used has no capacity to reduce the threat to the officer
Edit: I am a LEO who was in the process of verification for this sub. I was banned for this and a few other similar comments. To quote the mod team:
Be aware that if you are a LEO and you go against the mainstream, the mods will ban you for innocuous comments such as this regardless of your verification status.
Ok. We shall see.
https://x.com/Morblius/status/2008966460652310595?ct=rw-null
Possibly this one. She pretty clearly hits him and he isn't really standing in front of the car
Thanks, seen a lot of angles but not that one. Others made it look like he was to the side, nice being able to see he actually did get hit. Seemed like his step was away from the vehicle too. Thought it'd be pretty hard to justify it until seeing this one.
Based on?
Probably will be justified, but not sure I would want the death of a person on my head because I was dumb enough to stand in front of a car. I do lots of traffic stops, directly in front of or behind a car is not where you should ever be, barring some sort of emergency. You can always get a tag and arrest later. Not worth getting run over, and shooting a driver doesn't even have an above average chance of slowing a car anyway
This is what happens when you hire anyone off the street, and give them the barest minimum of training though. I deal just enough with Ice that I dread every time I'm with one of their agents. Might be different other places, but the ones I deal with are definitely bottom of the barrel, and I'm pretty confident they would have all been washed out of our FTO program.
My brother is an 1811 with another alphabet agency. He’s the first one to admit they get very little training on patrol-related tasks. Sure, they have amazing training in other areas, but something like a simple traffic stop is barely touched on because it’s almost seen as beneath them. He’s done a couple ride alongs with me and I had to explain to him the basic tactics on a traffic stop.
IDK if it's fair to say they don't get training because they it's "beneath them", but rather because "it's not their job". Feds don't do traffic stops as a typical part of their daily job, so they wouldn't get as much/any training on it.
Should there be a training they go on before being sent to one of these operations where now they're expected to do patrol-style work, absolutely, but that's a whole separate conversation since it's their upper management that thinks it's unnecessary because they did a three hour block of instruction ten years ago at the academy.
I’ve met more than a couple of my brother’s coworkers, and have dealt with feds from time to time at my own agency. And I can 100% say that some, maybe even a lot, of them think it’s beneath them. They work the big cases, the international cases, the ones having to deal with national security, etc. etc.
Of course, they’re not all like that. A few were municipal LEOs before they went fed. They know that 1811s have a different job than municipal LEOs, but also know that different ≠ better.
Honestly, the only feds I’ve met that seem that universally respect the field craft are Deputy Marshals and DEA agents. But that’s probably because they spend most of their days out on streets too, and not buried under paperwork in a cubicle.
NBC ran a report that had guys showing up for training despite failed piss tests and bad background checks. These are not skilled or competent LEOs and most of them shouldn't be trusted with firearms in public.
If you watch the video shot 1 was after she cleared him. So there really is no justification for shooting her.
[deleted]
At least since June, when he was struck and dragged by another vehicle.
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/minnesota-fraud-state-reps-testify-01-07-26?post-id=cmk4n7t8a000q3b6p9p680wju
Glad to see he learned exactly nothing after the first time.
Maybe people just need to stop striking federal agents with their cars.
[removed]
[removed]
I'll do what i use to do: I'll remain neutral. The investigation will tell, what really happened and if the actions were justified or not.
But here's a question that i'd like to ask: Just read on CNN, these ICE agents don't have bodycams.
So how is it in the USA with bodycams, like, does it depend on the agency? Does it depend on the departement on local- or state-level if bodycams get used or not?
When i see this right with some infos, ICE is a federal agency itself? Under the departement of homeland security? How is it determined about equipment that gets used, like the bodycams?
In 2022, the Biden administration issued an executive order for all federal law enforcement agencies to begin rolling out body worn cameras. This year, several federal law enforcement agencies began quietly rolling back the BWC policies. ICE was roughly one-third of the way through their deployment during the pause. Agents who are in offices which are issued them keep them, and keep using them. Agents who are in other offices who aren't issued cameras don't have to use them. Rules for temporary deployments to other offices vary.
Thanks for the info!
The ICE commander, Bovino, was recently ordered to wear a body camera by a district judge in Chicago. - https://chicago.suntimes.com/immigration/2025/10/28/border-patrol-gregory-bovino-federal-court
Shortly after the above order, Bovino moved his AO to a different jurisdiction where the judge's order to wear a bodycam would not have effect. Bovino makes a habit of disrespecting the courts. - https://chicago.suntimes.com/the-watchdogs/2026/01/06/greg-bovino-border-patrol-chief-federal-judge-chicago-tennessee
I don't believe Bovino was directly involved in the shooting, but it's notable that he was literally on scene when this happened. - https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/07/greg-bovino-border-patrol-chief-on-site-during-minneapolis-ice-shooting
Bovino is CBP Border Patrol, not ICE.
People confuse HSI and CBP all the time it's infuriating. People claim that HSI have no authority over American citizens and then when I ask "then why was Josh Duggar arrested for possessing CSAM by HSI?" They just downvote me
I'm gonna say the thing. ICE really has no business playing cop.
They're poorly trained for this, and the reprocussions of their actions will set us all back.
I'm so tired of seeing them on the news for some dumb shit use of force or pointing guns at people.
Im gonna say the thing. They're not LEOs. They're Agents, and they need to stay in their lane.
Their lack of training is mind boggling to me.
I’ve been saying that from the beginning. They look and sound like shit. Makes cops everywhere look bad
[deleted]
I think the recent Texas case just affirmed that bad tactics do not mean the force was illegal.
Barnes v. Felix (2025) is a SCOTUS ruling saying that the courts must consider more than just a moment of threat. So, bad tactics may not alone mean that a use of force is unlawful but tactics must be considered as part of a totality of circumstances.
Two different circuits. Texas is 5th, Minnesota is 8th.
While the circuits don't rule for each other, they certainly influence the tides.
I don’t know man that guy had enough time to draw his gun and stick it into the window seems like the same amount of time could’ve been taken to step out of the way. It appears he used that as a way to stop her from leaving compared to defending himself. Looks pretty cut and dry.
Nevermind, the lady waived off two agents to go ahead of her. The first agent in the car left, while the second agent in the second car stopped. That second car agent is the one that shot her after he tried to apprehend her.
Her actions are consistent with trying to get away and not run over the agent that she has her wheels turned away from.
Clearly seen in this video: https://x.com/ilhanmn/status/2008977618708910275?s=46
If you're on the side of the SUV as it is accelerating away from you, is it still justifiable to shoot?
I keep getting downvoted with no response. I'm not an LEO, I'd prefer to be corrected if I'm wrong instead of just downvoted.
Here's the correction you're asking for: there's a very obvious bullet hole in the front windshield of the vehicle shot inward from outside the vehicle. The shots were all shot in under a second.
[deleted]
C'mon now. The agent walks up casually and stands right in front of the driver's side of the SUV as it's reversing. Agencies have been teaching for decades not to stand in front of a vehicle that looks like it's about to flee. The driver wasn't going to get out of there by continuing to reverse, so that means she has to go forward. Agent draws as the driver puts it into drive. Driver begins to accelerate, and agent just kinda sidestepped. To be clear, I'm not implying it's ever an obligation for a cop to try and escape before employing deadly force.
Anyway, when the agent fires, he's now off the driver's side quarter panel, and it looks like he's shooting into the A pillar and driver's side window as the SUV continues forward to the left of the agent (his left). Agent casually holsters and then casually starts walking in the direction the SUV drove off to. These actions don't really look like fear of death or great bodily harm. Now I don't this guy and how he reacts to things, buuut....
[deleted]
This is a recurring theme of the agency, they shoot at vehicles more than any agency I’ve ever heard of.
they shoot at a ton of cars under similar circumstances.
It’s almost like their bad hiring practices and lack of training are not good for actual officer safety.
I 100% agree with his assessment. If we take off our LEO blind support glasses off it’s easier to spot things like that.
[removed]
[removed]
Why is the response to that kind of threat 'draw and fire' instead of 'step to the right'?
[deleted]
Just to be clear, I'm asking to understand, not drive narrative. Thank you for your response.
Because the imperiled officer has no idea what her intent is. He approached as she backed up.
He doesn't know how far she is backing up. He doesn't know why she is backing up. All she knows is the car is backing up, and another officer is giving very loud and clear verbal commands to get out of the vehicle.
She then stops, shifts gears, puts it into drive, and turns the wheel. Turning the wheel was the (to me) wild card. He appears to move to his right slightly as she moves forward, but he is also not sure what her intentions are. He has literally a fraction of a second to decide if she is a threat, and if that is so, he is in IMMEDIATE danger.
Shots fired.
But that goes back to my question. The immediate danger is being struck by the car, why is the response to draw a weapon instead of move out of danger?
Officer had a split second decision. Unfortunately, he chose to shoot.
I NEVER get anywhere near the front or rear of occupied cars during investigations.
I wish he would have slid over to his right immediately.
Still justified.
We had this exact scenario in my Academy. There is a delay between perceiving a threat and then reacting to the threat. The scenario has a car driving at us, with a suspect wanted for a crime (the crime didn't really matter, it was just clear they were already wanted). The car then swerved from coming at us to going by us. Everyone gets one or two shots at the windshield and one or two shots at the side window. Because the threat stopped coming at you, but you hadn't figured it out until it was already going by.
I think anybody that watches the videos in good faith has to acknowledge that she was clearly trying to flee and turn away from him, not towards him. He created the dangerous situation for himself by walking towards the vehicle. This is 100% unjustified imo. Pretty sure most agencies have SOP regarding putting yourself in imminent danger by standing in front of or moving towards a fleeing vehicle in motion, no?
But, based on the way Noem and Trump have spoken regarding this, I have absolutely zero faith that it'll be handled or resolved appropriately.
The subjective intent of the driver is not going to be an issue here. (Before I get downvoted by the this was murder brigade - I dont think it was her explicit intent to run the officer over - that being said, the risk running an officer over while fleeing the police is not a compelling off ramp) The question will be what a reasonable officer in this officers situation would have felt in fear of death or serious bodily injury. The reasonable officer need not sit there and make a 20 minute determination of the operators motivation. The operators motivation is literally irrelevant. The fact that she was turning away from him, ostensibly after hitting the gas since the wheels are already spinning, is also irrelevant. It will be what the officer perceived. Just because you may have struck and killed the officer ON ACCIDENT doesn't mean the officer isn't justified in being scared of death or SBI.
The 20 minute video review going frame by frame from angles the officer wasn't privy to in making a split second decision is the most damaging thing to the analysis of officer involved shootings to ever exist.
Yes from what I see clearly she wasn't trying to hit him but her vehicle was still aiming towards him when she initially hits the gas to flee. In fact if you watch it frame by frame in the link below, when she goes from reverse into drive her wheels are pointing to the left of him even and the gas is being hit. He goes for his gun while the wheels are still pointing at him spinning so everything is already in motion for him to assume threat. Hypothetically if there was no ice on the road(no pun intended) and her wheels don't spin she would have hit him harder than she did(It looks like she clips him slightly from another video). Regardless bad situation all around.
https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExcHhhYmR3eGk0ZTJqMTZrd2dxcGxpbzd6NHdjMGF0YmY5MWhtcmt4aiZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/74GtTMcOtGCjR8TVaY/giphy.gif
Crazy how so many unverified motherfuckers are providing opinions on a use of force.
Reddit loves playing detective.
It is because an incident of this nature has buy-in from everyone involved from police to the community. People have opinions on how they want to be policed and they want to express those opinions to the police i.e. here.
I’ve watched the videos and creating exigency a side I don’t see anyone rendering aid when it appears safe to do so.
There was a doctor among the civilians and they denied him access
Isn’t that common at the scene of a police shooting though? Not letting civilians near the scene I mean.
How did they know he was a doctor. For all that they knew he was a doctor in literature
That’s not unusual on crime scenes.
Based on the political fallout, we may have a situation where the local or state prosecutors indict the officer/agent who shot the deceased even though the federal administration has already stated they believe the shooting to be justified. Only time I recall seeing this happen was with Ruby Ridge, where an FBI sniper was indicted by the locals and the federal government had to intervene in the case, and it was eventually dismissed. This is a gray area of law. Generally if there's a bad shoot involving a federal agent in the scope of their duties, it's up to the US Attorney to indict. If the US Attorney refuses to indict, but a local state prosecutor does, it creates a weird scenario where the federal government, along with any witnesses employed by the federal government, may not cooperate with the state prosecution and the officer may challenge the indictment based on the supremacy clause.
Lon Horiuchi - Wikipedia
As to the shooting itself, I believe it was reasonably justified based on what I have seen thus far. However, I will say I'm not very comfortable with it. It's hard to judge a split second decision that resulted in the unfortunate loss of life, especially when it was something dumb like blocking the road.
Question; Based on the video is the deceased's placement of her vehicle(blocking the lane) considered obstructing a federal law enforcement officer and if it is, then is ICE agent allowed to demand her to get out? I'm seeing a lot of random people online stating they have no authority as they are not 'traffic cops' and they are only allowed to attempt to go around her.
Yes. They are authorized to make arrests for a federal offense that happens in front of them. Blocking a road to prevent federal agents/officers from acting in the scope of their duties is clearly a violation of federal law. The officers/agents would then be authorized to engage, pursue, and arrest that individual. Similarly, they are authorized to make arrests of people that commit crimes against them while in the scope of their duty, such as battery, resisting, obstructing, etc.
They are also authorized to make investigative detainments based on suspicion of a crime. Similar analysis as above, they suspect this person is attempting to impede their duties and based on that they are authorized to detain them, ID them, etc.
Being in the car or on the road has little or nothing to do with this analysis. If she was using a hotdog stand instead of a car, would the argument be "well ICE doesn't do restaurant code enforcement, so they can't compel her to leave the hotdog stand?" No, that's ridiculous.
Most of the time this happens in federal investigations, it's not practical or essential to make these arrests or detainments because the officers/agents just want to get to their main assignment and safely leave. The agitators often outnumber the officers/agents, and they have no practical way of arresting the number of people impeding their duties. There has to be some tact, because if you are too aggressive in arresting some of these instigators, you can create unsafe environments that prevent you from actually accomplishing whatever the primary goal of the operation was. For example, if the officers were serving a warrant on a fugitive, but take time away to arrest agitators who impede them, it's time and resources spent away from the primary goal of the warrant for the fugitive, which is probably more important. Arresting a single person can take away a whole days work for a team, and if there's a use of force (not necessarily deadly), it takes away more resources as superiors and other agencies may have to review the use of force. Then, most of these agitators would be back on the street anyways and suffer little to any consequence and all of this additional work and stress was for nothing.
That's why protestors and instigators have become comfortable acting up and impeding law enforcement during these incidents, they know it's unlikely that law enforcement will actually arrest people. Likewise, even if someone is detained, they often will not face any repercussions because the officers/agents will let them go, or prosecutors will just dismiss the case or give a lenient plea deal that does not include jail or even a conviction. This is the result of decades of letting instigators act like this without consequence.
Thanks. This sums up my suspicion where a lot of the issue is at. I've read a significant amount of different forums and responses on this subject and anecdotally I would say 50% of people don't actually understand what power ICE agents have.
It's almost as if people think they are somewhere between mall security and local police being closer to mall security when in fact they are federal law enforcement officers and the real danger seems to be they don't think they have to comply with them due to a misunderstanding of who they are and being comfortable in the scenario you mentioned above. That ultimately seems to be a big danger in that you have enforcement with great authority but general population does not understand the actual extent of that authority and you end up in bad scenarios like this.
"Moment of threat" vs Totality of the circumstances". Was there a reason the officer was standing in front of the vehicle? And ofcos it had to be in Minneapolis.
Does anyone know what the bullet trajectory was? I've been trying to work out this guy's field of fire, but these videos suck almost as bad as my eyes.
If he's firing from the front of the vehicle, it seems like some of his buddies are in danger of being hit by a stray round. If he's firing from driver to passenger side, it doesn't seem like he'd be in enough danger to warrant the shoot.
First picture of this article shows the bullet hole in the front. Other two shots were through driver side window. https://www.reflector.com/news/national/the-latest-ice-officer-shoots-and-kills-a-woman-during-minneapolis-immigration-crackdown/article_71f85eb4-966b-5c94-8656-b46a445499cb.html
It’s okay to say this was a bad shoot guys, here’s my viewpoint;
1) didn’t get off the X 2) agent leans into her path of travel 3) three shots when she’s already past the agent
[removed]
How does that comment, in any way, help promote that discussion you want, or move things forward?
I'll help - it doesn't.
Honestly the footage looks hard to justify for the ICE agent (in hindsight anyway), but very difficult to gauge the intent of the driver in the moment. Looks more than evident that the driver was trying to leave the scene rather than causing harm, and at least in my part of the world discharging a firearm in the drivers side window of a moving vehicle is always going to raise some serious questions.
The risk assessment should have happened ahead of time, and the question should already have been asked 'is this person a public risk if they are allowed to leave?'. If not, I can't see justification to shoot them rather than just catch up with them at home an hour later.
Will be interesting to see what comes of this
In the full video the car moves forward with an agent in front of the car and agents around the car. Probably shouldn't do that as a vehicle operator.
We’re taught in the first week of the academy to not put yourself in front of a fleeing vehicle because you’re forcing deadly force and it’s a huge officer safety issue.
So you’d be risking your life as well as huge legal repercussions.
She does reverse to try to get out of the way of the agents so she can drive away. It’s just all a shitty situation.
The agent who literally put himself in the front of the vehicle in the first place. Anyone legitimately trained as an LEO knows not to do that. And the woman was most likely focused on the officer that was trying to force her from the vehicle and yelling at her. Any civilian that faces a masked man running at you to “get out of the fucking car “ after jumping out from an unmarked Nissan pick up truck, would most likely be panicked and trying to get away for safety. I doubt she even realized the other ice agent who chose to walk in front of her vehicle in the first place.
That’s what I’m sayin as well a lot of dumb decisions
Does anyone have a non x/twitter version of the “second angle”? The only video I’ve seen appears to show the car coming at the officer, but I’ve seen people say a second angle shows the officer was in no danger.
Idk if this is the angle you're looking for or not
Video: https://streamable.com/ef5pro
I think that first vehicle is an ICE truck just going around the woman's car.
EDIT - Just saw a slightly longer video. It looks like she was trying to drive away, but gets cut off by the other SUV.
The ICE truck approaches, and it looks like she doesn't know if she should go first or let the truck through. Then they hop out right away.
EDIT 2 - The video I'm referring to is 1:32 long.
she literally is waving them by.
Yeah that’s the one I’ve seen. Apparently there is another?
I've seen two angles on X and both show the officer being struck. Not sure how they can find a third angle that shows otherwise.
https://preview.redd.it/7lho2y5950cg1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fed961560e45ca5e4ab97e45083bd55b0838456c
Why do diners charge like $16 for a simple breakfast meal. A plate of two bacon strips, two eggs, two sausage links, and two pieces of buttered toast should not cost more than $9. Yet why do these meal sets cost like $16? It makes no sense.
You need to stop overthinking breakfast foods before the mods lock down this comment.
There’s still stuff coming out, I don’t think we should jump to Conclusions yet
I only say this and said this dozens of times when things like this happens.
Edit: I watch the video and it loooked like self defense since the vehicle was going to hit them.
Edited 15:17 Edited At 15:04
The vehicle did hit him.
Lightly grazed him. The vehicle was past and turning away at the time of the first shot.
But the real question is why were the cops jump to ordering someone “out of the fucking car” in response to simply asking “what’s going on”?
The verbal attack and unwarranted threat to her freedom is what instigated her to start to pull away.
Ice aren’t cops they’re federal agents.
I’ve worked closely with ice and they’re highly untrained. So this isn’t surprising.
My brother also just joined ice and even he’s shocked with how little training they get.
Basically it’s a week long online course for prior LEO regardless of their background.
People keep saying the agent was ran over, at most his toe got ran over but even then that’s at most.
Semantics. “Cops” as used by the general public is a generalized term for law enforcement officers.
Unless the guy was brand new, he had at least five months of academy training at FLETC. The surge hires who have very little formal academy training are barely starting to hit the streets.
He’s SRT so it means he should know better. It makes it worse honestly.
SRT is the top tier federal swat and this dude doesn’t know he shouldn’t be standing in front of cars? Yeah dude is fucked at the very least in civil court.
I think you’re overestimating ERO SRT haha.
I’ve got my popcorn going… there’ll be so much jumping, it will make the Olympic hurdles look like a toddler’s game.
Edit… stay away from the other subs… Mount Everest is just a speed bump right now…
Apnews is saying the driver physically hit an ice agent but didn't knock them down. I guess the rest of reddit thinks apnews is in ICE/Trumps pocket or playing bumper cars with feds is just good clean fun?
Of course AP news could just be spamming out unchecked facts
"Seconds later, the car drives away and a different ICE officer standing in front of the car fires at least two shots toward the driver. The SUV knocked the officer back but not down. "
You have not seen the videos. It shows her backing up. The reverse lights go off. Tires turned all the way right. Cop walking up telling her to move. Than goes to grab at her door. Another cop gets close to her left in front of the rear view mirror and let's of the shots. Car moves forward about 150 yards and slams into something.
The longer videos too...
The ICE truck is coming up the street, and while I don't have access to the video at the moment, it's probably 10 seconds until the shooting. Maybe less. Whatever the exact time, it's very fast.
National Guard just got a warning order.
You must be killed before you can defend yourself.
I believe the new Reddit UOF policy requires an officer to wait and evaluate how badly they are injured before deadly force is authorized. If the suspects bullet misses you, you are NOT authorized.
AND fall down. No dying against a wall and defending yourself!
Was the officer who was on the side of the vehicle as it was accelerating away in danger of being killed?
Took his shots from the front quarter panel on drivers side and was in no threat of being hit. Straight up murder.
He was literally hit by the car.
He also has his phone out for some reason fillming
We’re taught in the academy to not put yourself in front of a car.
All due respect. If you’re justifying this as an American, not a cop. I think you should take a good look in the mirror. Totality of circumstance. Just because you might legally justify it, doesn’t mean any of the things leading to this woman’s death are justified.
This pic is why I don’t think it was justified. Hope it helps.
Thanks for what y’all do. Hope it goes easy, gents.
In the US the courts look at use of force ever changing. The totality of the circumstances plays a role in the courts eyes but it depends at the current the of the force was applied. Idk how they will rule this case, but remember to view from the officers POV at the time force was used (bullet fired)
I’m not talking about the court’s eyes, brother. All the stuff that got us to this point is shameful. America was better than this.
Last point and I’ll walk away.
If he was actual ICE (not another fed agency,) and she is a citizen do they even have authority to arrest for obstruction in a traffic scenario like that? Does the fact that they never said “you’re under arrest, we’re police,” just “get the fuck out of the car” mean that she was moving in self defense?
If what I say is true and this legally isn’t anything other than murder in the commission of what technically could be argued as carjacking, what’s the federal penalty for that?
We all know it won’t be investigated, but as cops tell me this, can an administrative ICE agent remove someone from their car without telling them they’re under arrest for what might or might not be obstructing traffic?
Last point. I’ve seen the video. I don’t think the car touched dude. I think the guy at the door didn’t let go of the door handle.
If you care, count how long the shooter aimed at her head.
One…
Two…
He should have moved and I don’t actually see him get hit, just his movement.
Hope people who read this see it for what it is. I have no reason to have a problem with cops. I don’t think ICE are cops, I think they’re federal immigration agents.
ICE agents and officers can arrest American citizens. We don’t know why she was being stopped or why they were trying to remove her from the car. We also don’t know the circumstances that led to the pilot being sideways in the street. They will have to justify their stop and actions but a reasonable person surrounded by officers in uniforms with at least one vehicle with lights going directly next to their car would consider themselves detained.
Pretty clearly a legal shoot to me.
Agent who shot got out of a different SUV, that appeared to be used to block the deceased's vehicle. He had blocked the vehicle in andLonger footage shows he wasn't stepping in front of a moving vehicle, he was just walking around it. Deceased decided to angle vehicle to go around the SUV, as he was still walking around, which happened to also be angling at him. Agent appears to still be trying to get out of the way when he draws, fires, and gets hit by the car. Which means he didn't intentionally put himself in front of a moving vehicle because he was trying to move out of the way.I don't think the deceased had any intention to run the agent down, and probably didn't know he was there, as she was likely distracted by the other agent pulling on her door handle.
I don't know if they have some sort of no pursuit policy that caused something like this. It would be a very odd circumstance for me to be in front of a suspect vehicle and trying to block it in.
If this happened with city cops I doubt it'd be as big of a a deal.
lawful but awful type shoot.
Depending on your jurisdiction, this may violate policies with some agencies and may even result in a charge based on the prosecutors opinions.
I don't even think they were intending to stand in front or behind the car, I think they were still processing everything and moving around observing everything. Within a split second it looks like she decided to turn and bult, and his reaction isn't necessarily unreasonable
Hits the nail squarely on the head.
Clearly a fluid situation, not even worth evaluating with slowed down footage. Her intent is (IMO) largely irrelevant. What matters here is if the agent reasonably felt that his life was in immediate danger at the time of the shooting. There is also a second question: was his crossing in front of the vehicle reasonable? I agree that it looks more incidental than like an intentional act. He looks like he’s crossing to the drivers door to get her out.
I’m also not even sure if it’s worth examining if she was detained or not or if the detention was lawful. Hearing audio might change my thoughts on that, but it really doesn’t matter in my read of this.
It all comes down to this: was the driver advancing her vehicle towards the agent in a manner that reasonably placed him in fear of death or serious bodily injury. The initial information leads me to believe that he was.
Caveat: The whole situation looks clumsy and amateur. The vehicle is not immobilized, and it’s not the time to be trying to yank her out, if that’s indeed what’s happening. It’s certainly not safe to cross in front of, and her actions are just as ill conceived as theirs. I don’t think anyone wants this to be the way laws are enforced here. Bad outcomes matter much more than good ones in my experience. This whole interaction looks like a bad outcome, with all parties in a no-win. A woman is dead when she might otherwise not be. This guy gets the publicity of having a critical incident in the worst possible city, and all that comes with it. And most of all the nation as a whole is worse off for this.
Minneapolis had the summer of love and now the winter of affection. I’m ready for some OT
I don't know what the laws of Minnesota are, but isn't recklessly hitting someone with a vehicle assault with a deadly weapon?
This would be a federal case, not a state case
[removed]
I was curious if it was a one way or two way street where this happened so I did some digging and found where the incident occurred.
Does anybody have any idea why there is a dinosaur and a shark superimposed on street view right about where the altercation started?
https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9421457,-93.2676366,3a,44y,287.85h,90.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sMNo8-op2zyN12UiM9-OPJw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.9899999999999949%26panoid%3DMNo8-op2zyN12UiM9-OPJw%26yaw%3D287.85!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDEwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
That's really weird!
I had to use google image search--they're not superimposed, they were there in 2021 and 2022 (the last street view)!
https://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/76109 https://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/86549
Edited to add: You can see it in this pic.
https://www.mprnews.org/story/2026/01/07/shooting-south-minneapolis-ice-agents-federal-operation
Whatever facts are revealed from the investigation 3 things seem immediately apparent:
1: Cars can be used as deadly weapons and it’s entirely reasonable for a LEO to feel threatened if one is speeding in their direction.
2: it’s abundantly clear that ICE agents on the streets aren’t trained in working as street officers and shouldn’t be used as such.
3: If ICE agents hadn’t behaved the way they have this past year, this incident wouldn’t have happened.
Question for LEOs here. If it turns out that the shots that killed her were the ones fired through her side window after there was definitely no officer in the path of the vehicle, how relevant would that be in determining whether her shooting was criminal homocide?
I don't know how others may look at this, but to me, every round fired is its own separate use of force that will need to be weighed.
I think the first round through the windshield may stand on its own, but it'll be scrutinized because of where the officer placed themselves.
I think the other two will be even more difficult to argue that deadly force was justified.
I'd say let's wait and see, but this administration is already spinning quite the web.
This is more a general comment about ICE, but goddamn if they’re gonna try and be cops they should have to learn and train how to be cops. They don’t get a lot of basic street level training for proactive or reactive policing, and their forced vehicle stops look like hot garbage.
Videos of the incident from multiple angles:
https:// x com/GaysForTrump/status/2008966816769691922
So now some time has past since the videos have come out, I will say the 'deceased' was being told to get out of the car by the ICE agent who approached her door, and that this same vehicle has been harassing them prior to this situation. We know how being ICE is a massive target on your back now with the ramming incident in Chicago last year and the tow truck stealing the ICE SUV. Plus many other 'auditors' getting involved because they want to play hero.
The far left video does show the ICE agent was walking around in front of the vehicle when the deceased tried to flee, possibly to help the other agent get her out of the car and under arrest, so I don't believe he willingly did put himself there.
I will say, reacting that fast and that sudden to a vehicle coming towards you, hell of a shot placement.
The car also had its taillights on to look like it was reversing when the ICE agent walked around the front of her car. I don’t see how else they could have quickly gotten around to the side of the car, other than sliding over the roof, which would also be dangerous on a car that’s moving.
You can literally see the tires begin to spin as he was in front of the car. Just slow down the footage and look closely, this was 100% justified, we dont need people thinking they can hurt police and not face consequences.
The tires spun because it was icy. Notice how the car didn't move right away, and how two other officers slipped on the ice.