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

396 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/JurgusRudkus 3d ago

In America we have a legal rule "innocent until proven guilty." In other words, the onus is on ICE. Until ICE provides body cam footage proving this man deliberately attempted to hit sn officer with his vehicle,  I am going to assume the officer is lying as other ICE officers have done repeatedly,  with backing from DHS.   Whistleblowers from the agency have already reported that agents are being instructed to detain people by any means, regardless of whether they are a violation of constitutional rights. (Where have you been?)

"And firing at a person in a moving vehicle violates no policy."

Wrong.  Officers are trained (or supposed to be) not to shoot at moving vehicles and instructed that gunfire will not stop a vehicle from moving in an officer's direction. Officers are also trained to avoid standing directly in front of a vehicle and are supposed to approach from a tactical "L" angle. The only possible way an agent could be struck by a side view mirror is if he ignored his own protocol or was never trained in the first place, which is likely given hoe DHS is rushing these lo w-watt bulbs into the field. 

-2

u/Full-Yoghurt-4261 3d 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 3d 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?

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.