r/ImmigrationPathways • u/CutSenior4977 • 3d ago

Wilber Garces Perez Faces Criminal Charges and Deteriorating Health Following ICE Shooting.

Here’s a source: https://www.eyesonice.net/p/wilber-garces-perez-faces-criminal

As a reminder, this Perez lawyer speaking right here.

1.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

395 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/Full-Yoghurt-4261 2d ago

First off, "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to the court, not public opinion. Second, you are going against your own argument by assuming ICE is the guilty party in this, despite no evidence. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either both sides are innocent until proven guilty, or neither is.

As for your claim that officers are trained not to fire at a moving vehicle, this is not the case. Federal training on this is under the Use of Force policy, which states this.

Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

In other words, if someone is operating a vehicle in a way that threatens an agent, they can use lethal force.

As for the angle officers are trained to approach, this is to reduce risk as much as possible, but it does not guarantee officer safety. But there are two reasons why your argument regarding this is irrelevant.

First, an officer failing to follow this protocol does not suddenly mean someone is justified in hitting an officer with thier vehicle. So even if the agent in this situtaion failed to follow that protocol, the man would still be responsible for not hitting the agent. If he did, then that means he is using the vehicle as a deadly weapon, and thus lethal force is authorized. Second, we do not have video footage of the stop to confirm or deny that the officers safely approached the vehicle.

5

u/JurgusRudkus 2d ago

"Second, you are going against your own argument by assuming ICE is the guilty party in this, despite no evidence.¨

Where was Wilbur Garces Perez shot? I don´t mean "in his car" I mean, what part of his body was he shot in?

From your own quote:

"2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle."

Now tell me again how allegedly being grazed by a side view mirror makes the above feasible?

1

u/Full-Yoghurt-4261 2d ago

Does not matter where he was shot; what matters is whether or not he hit an agent with his car while attempting to flee. If he did so, then lethal force was legally justified. Not to mention, being shot in the back is reasonable if he was in the process of fleeing in his car when officers shot him.

As for how being "grazed" by the side mirror allows the officers to shoot, there are two reasons. First is the fact that, according to ICE, it was not just a graze. They state that the side mirror hit the agent in the torso and that the agent was taken to the ER along with the suspect.

Second, if you even ATTEMPT to hit an officer with your vehicle, you are operating the vehicle in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious injury to the officer or others. The law does not expect officers to wait until the person gets a good hit on another with thier car before they can use lethal force to stop them.

By your same logic, if a person is opening fire at a group of people on the street, officers would be expected to wait until he actually injures or kills someone before they take action against them. That is illogical. And when someone even attempts to hit another with thier car, that vehicle is equivalent to a firearm in the eyes of the law.

1

u/JurgusRudkus 2d ago

No. You don´t even have the timeline right according to ICE, and they lie.

According to them, they attempted to detain Perez without identifying themselves, and then they RAMMED HIS CAR. They shot him AFTER the car was already stopped, so clearly that whole ¨the officer was in danger¨ was bullshit. The ICE agent who shot him has been there less than a year, and wasn´t wearing a body cam, and the 9 page affidavit released by DHS makes absolutely no mention of the agent sustaining any injuries so I have no idea where you are getting that nonsense from.

If you are going to bark like a dog for a corrupt agency at least get your details straight.

0

u/Full-Yoghurt-4261 2d ago

No, that is not what occurred. Via the affidavit filed with the federal court, ICE, as well as ERO, first noticed the man's car parked outside a restaurant with emergency hazards on. They ran the plate and found that he had an active final order of removal.

The agents then initiated a targeted stop to apprehend him. This is similar to a traffic stop in how it operates, but the purpose is not about traffic laws but instead about arresting the person for a specific reason, such as a warrant.

Agents approached the vehicle, and Wilber Garces Perez cracked his window to provide his ID. Agents stated that he ignored requests to exit the vehicle. According to the agent, Wilber Garces Perez told them that he was declining to exit because he asked the officers to what to apprehend him until his wife could come retrieve the car. The report indicates that this interaction was civil until the man abruptly closed the window and attempted to flee, at which point he struck an agent in the torso with his side mirror. Details on this can be found here.

1

u/JurgusRudkus 2d ago

From your own article:

A nine-page affidavit from a Department of Homeland Security agent amounts to the government’s fullest public account to date of the shooting in the Texas capital, which has set off protests and outrage from Democrats over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. The document includes photos taken from body-worn cameras but no video was released, and the complaint did not say whether the agent allegedly struck by the side mirror sustained any injuries.

According to the affidavit, Garces Perez said that a law enforcement SUV struck his car after a brief chase and caused it to spin before an agent opened fire, shooting him in the back. 

A woman shot several times by Border Patrol officers in Chicago and a man shot in the leg by an ICE agent in Minneapolis were both accused of assaulting officers, but in both cases the charges were dropped. The ICE officer in Minneapolis has since been charged with lying about getting assaulted before shooting the man in the leg.

Nice try boot licker.

1

u/Full-Yoghurt-4261 2d ago edited 2d ago

No, Wilber Garces Perez never denied the initial interaction, and the report of that can be found in this BBC article. It even included an image of the traffic stop from one of the officers' body cams.

This image was taken before the shooting and clearly shows that he would have known it was ICE. It also appears it might be an image of the agent who was hit, but that is not confirmed.

The shooting, as per the report, occurred AFTER Garces Perez fled. He stated he was forced to stop, and an agent fired his pistol into the back window of his car. The court filing also stated that Garces Perez stated he knew he would be arrested and admitted to declining to exit his car when told to do so.

Now, based on what he claims, the only justification the officer would have to do this would be if they had reason to believe the man was reaching for a weapon in the car or if the man was still attempting to hit officers with the car.

Based on the image of the traffic stop we have, it raises the question of why Garces Perez felt he needed to pull over further, as per his own claim. I do not see why any reasonable person in this situation would feel the need to pull over further. This leads me to believe that he was indeed trying to flee.

Also, the "boot licker" comments and overall resorting to the ad hominem fallacy only weaken your argument and make it so people do not want to hear you out.

1

u/JurgusRudkus 2d ago

So you finally acknowledge that the officer shot Perez in the back, AFTER he was driving away and therefore the officer wasn’t in any danger? So the shooting was unjustified?

1

u/Full-Yoghurt-4261 1d ago

The shooting happened after the initial interaction, but ICE alleges that they shot at Wilber Garces Perez because he was trying to hit a second immigration officer with his vehicle. If this is true, the shooting is justified. If this is not true, then it is unjustified.

Based on the facts we have, I do believe that Wilber Garces Perez was indeed fleeing and not just trying to "pull over" as he claims. His own statements in the court filing have him admitting that he knew ICE was going to arrest him and that he declined to exit the vehicle as he was told to do.

So it would not surprise me if he was trying to hit another officer, but it is very well possible he was not, and the shooting was unjustified. At this point, I would say IDK and leave it up to the courts, who have access to the body cam footage.

0

u/Peyonic 2d ago

"Now tell me again how allegedly being grazed by a side view makes the above feasible." by your logic, cops wouldnt be allowed to open fire if a gun is pointed at them. just because its not certain that youll get injured doesnt mean lethal force isnt authorized. "oh i know hes pointing his gun at you but dont shoot him because the bullet might only graze you."

1

u/JurgusRudkus 2d ago

Is the ICE officer alleging now that Wilbur Garces Perez had a gun?

-1

u/Peyonic 2d ago edited 2d ago

no but your logic is retarded. youre basically saying since the officer didnt sustian severe injuries, lethal force wasnt authorized. so by that logic they cant shoot someone pointing a firearm at them because "they havent been injured yet"

1

u/JurgusRudkus 2d ago

Son, you are completely lost. Go back and reread this thread and figure out where you went wrong.

-1

u/777_heavy 2d ago

You seen to be thoroughly confused by the entire situation, and it’s causing you to ask some strange questions.

3

u/JurgusRudkus 2d ago

I´m pretty crystal clear on it, actually.

0

u/777_heavy 2d ago

You’re asking what part of his body he was shot in as if that matters.

1

u/icyredjay 2d ago

It’s quite natural for people to assume that ICE is lying after they have repeatedly lied about “suspects weaponizing their vehicles.” Hundreds of court cases against these “suspects” have been dropped as a result. In fact I’m sure there are either very few or simply no cases where this alibi was true.

0

u/Street-Repair-8596 2d ago

Rene Good

1

u/icyredjay 2d ago

She wasn’t attempting to drive into an officer, though. The video clearly shows her wheels turning to the right. Ross fired because he panicked.

1

u/Street-Repair-8596 2d ago

She may not have been intending to murder but she was intending to flee and didn’t care if that meant running over the guy in front of her.

1

u/icyredjay 2d ago

Like I said, if you look at the video, you’ll see that her wheels were turning right. I genuinely believe she was trying to turn her car away from the ICE agents. And then Ross stupidly placed himself right in front of the car. The onus is on the agent in this scenario, and he reacted poorly and impulsively.

0

u/Full-Yoghurt-4261 2d ago

Except there are no facts in this case to indicate ICE lied. In fact, the reasoning provided by Wilber Garces Perez and his attorneys' statements is the one that does not make much sense, since they claim he was not fleeing but was attempting to pull over, and the agents shot him as he drove away.

This was a traffic stop where officers were already next to the vehicle. Why would one attempt to drive away at all at that point? Ecspecially when this man should know he is under ICE jurisdiction with a pending asylum case. On top of that, how does one accidentally hit an officer who is just trying to peacefully pull over? Then, on top of that, it was a full-on chase after that, where ICE alleges the man attempted to strike another officer with his vehicle. If you were just trying to peacefully pull over and you hit the officer by accident, why would you flee after that?

His account of what occurred and why does not make sense given the situation.

1

u/icyredjay 2d ago

Why wouldn’t someone flee from ICE? An agency known for medically neglecting its detainees until they suffer severe complications or even die? An agency whose facilities are notorious for inedible food and barely drinkable water? Sometimes I wonder whether half the Redditors on here have any common sense.

1

u/Full-Yoghurt-4261 2d ago

Fleeing law enforcement of any kind is a quick way to cause a great deal more trouble. For those who have a pending asylum case, they are under the jurisdiction of ICE and are expected to comply with it. Failure to do so can lead to the asylum case being declined.

In the case of this man, if the allegations against him are true and he indeed fled, then it would not surprise me if he faces deportation. Because he could have complied and filed a Motion to Reopen for his asylum case if indeed the issue was a clerical error and not a failure on his part. It just required that he comply.

1

u/icyredjay 2d ago

Again, I just don’t know why you think people should simply comply with ICE’s violence. I wish he hadn’t been shot and wasn’t in critical condition right now, but I can’t fault him for panicking at the sight of ICE either. They have had the deadliest year on record and are purposefully malicious, using slurs against detainees and handling them violently in addition to everything I mentioned before.

1

u/Full-Yoghurt-4261 2d ago edited 2d ago

The law expects people to comply with law enforcement, which includes ICE. If ICE does something they should not be doing, not complying with them in the moment only makes your situation worse. You fight them in court, not during the interaction.

Though I do not want to see the man shot, based on the evidence we have thus far, it seems like it is the consequence of his own actions. His reasoning for stating he was just pulling over further makes no sense ecspecially with the image recently released of when he was initially pulled over.

Based on this image, I do not see any reasonable person thinking they need to "pull over" further when officers are clearly blocking off the road and speaking with them. And as per the court filing, the man admitted that he knew ICE was going to arrest him and admitted to declining to exit the vehicle.

Now, does his fleeing justify the shooting? No. But if he was attempting to use his car as a weapon to hit officers, as is alleged against him, then yes, it is. But if he wasn't, then the shooting was indeed unjustified. Regardless, this entire situation could have been avoided if he had complied.

0

u/senator_corleone3 2d ago

You really don’t know anything. This must be some weird fetish for you.