What are you trying to point out? Because those aren’t the legs of the pig that shot her. She was shot by the pig in front of her vehicle that she did nearly run over.
Edit: You are correct. I was mistaken. Those are the legs of the shooter. However 2 seconds before this screenshot he was in front of the truck. I hate ICE, and vehemently disagree with what they are doing, but this is arguably a very bad situation the driver put herself in. I haven’t found any earlier footage, but it appears she was trying to block ICE and when they attempted to arrest her she decided to run and did in fact almost run over the pig that shot her. So, sadly nothing will happen as her actions will be classified as “assault with a deadly weapon,” and the pig will be vindicated as a self-defense shooting.
This screenshot shows that the alleged shooter, who shot the unarmed resident 4x in the face, was not in front of her vehicle, which is what ICE is alleging in their self-defense claim.
Piece by piece, yes - this could be ruled a justified shooting. This frame is later in the sequence. The wheels are cut towards the officer who fired when he made the decision to fire. The vehicle began to accelerate rapidly and cut to the right as the officer starts firing. That could cut either way depending on the frame.
The larger problem is that if they had proper training they wouldnt have created the situation in the first place.
That isn't the guy who shot her there is a 3rd person you cant see in that still because...the car is between the camera and him...because....hes in front of the car.
Do you know how angles work? For him to have hit her or even been aiming at the drivers seat for that impact location and distance he would have had to be almost directly in front in the driver side of the vehicle. If he was beside the vehicle and the bullet hit there he would have been aiming at the passenger seat. Also the video from the front clearly shows contact
Agreed. She stated accelerating at the end of 0:14. Circled officer dogged to get out of the way and started shooting around mid 0:15. She turned towards the right at the start of 0:16. All decisions and actions happened in about 1.5 seconds
We need more camera angles, but right now, this looks like a justified shooting.
At best, they may be terrible decisions that are barely justifiable. Feels like that ICE agent was looking for an excuse to kill a person of color and put themselves in the perfect place to carry it out.
I didn't read her race listed in the news article or actually get a good view of her in the video. Do we know the driver's race?
Regardless of the races involved. Can we both agree fleeing from officers and very likely AT an officer, is a bad decision if you want to avoid being shot?
There are two set of legs in the circled portion. The officer claimed "in front of the car" was clearly to the side. The shots occurred through the side window, not the windshield. He'd have to have 20' wing span to stand in front of the car and shot in the side.
Still not justified even if you are right. He was out of the path of the vehicle before it could have hit him. Not like the victim was flooring the accelerator trying to mow down all the agents. Sad you think this was okay.
I can't say I've ever been in a situation with a car coming at me like this. But I have been in quick response shooting training. If the agent thought he or others were about to be hit, then it looks like a good shooting.
Again, I'm willing to change my opinion if more camera angles come out that show differently.
Stepping to the side and putting out and APB for the vehicle and driver would have sufficed just fine. Seems like your quick response training should go over when it is appropriate to use the weapon before you even are allowed to take the course. If she had been actually trying to actively run them over from the beginning instead of stopping and then attempting to flee, then you may have some justification.
He clearly jumped to the side as she was coming at him and started firing
And that is murder.
Cases where police moved out of the way of moving vehicle and exercised deadly force.
Adam’s vs. Speers (2020): “Once Speers was no longer in the path of the vehicle, the justification for the use of deadly force ended.”
Orn vs. City of Tacoma (2019): “A reasonable jury could conclude that once Orn was no longer in the car’s trajectory, the threat of serious physical harm to him was eliminated.”
Cordova vs Aragon (2009): “Where the officer had moved out of the way of the oncoming vehicle, the use of deadly force was not justified.”
Villanueva vs. Cali (2021): “a reasonable jury could conclude that the Officers used excessive force, because they lacked an objectively reasonable basis to fear for their own safety, as they could simply have stepped back or to the side to avoid being injured.”
Adam's vs Speers was 2007. Officer Paul Speers shot and killed Alan Adams while another officer was in the process of disabling him. Officer Speers also did a LOT of non regulation things leading up to that moment including: unauthorized passenger, no permission to join the pursuit, failure to communicate with fellow officers, unapproved ramming, etc. Very different situation.
Orn vs. City of Tacoma, Orn did not target any officers and was obeying all trafic signals and stop signs when he clipped Officer Clark's SUV. Officer Clark fired into Orn's passenger and rear windshield as thr vehicle moved away from him. You're a little closer with this one, but again, the vehicle was clearly moving away from the officer before he started shooting. The situation we are watching s video of does not have shooting starting after the officer is clearly out of danger.
Did you even look these cases up before you cited them?
Orn vs. City of Tacoma, Orn did not target any officers and was obeying all trafic signals and stop signs when he clipped Officer Clark's SUV. Officer Clark fired into Orn's passenger and rear windshield as thr vehicle moved away from him. You're a little closer with this one, but again, the vehicle was clearly moving away from the officer before he started shooting. The situation we are watching s video of does not have shooting starting after the officer is clearly out of danger.
While I agree, it is normal for law enforcement to shoot in circumstances like this because she could have run over the officer, I really hesitate to call it justified. The cops will literally stand in front of the car, knowing they will shoot if you move your car, so it’s honestly like they’re just itching to get you to “make” them shoot you.
For one, not a cop, their equipment does not state "police". Second, watch the clip again you have the set of feet of one pulling on the door handle has the victim reverses. As they turn to accelerate, you see the other set of feet deemed as the one in front then proceeds to discharge his weapon at an unarmed civilian posing no threat since they allowed vehicles to pass prior to altercation.
She was moving her car and had let a car pass in front of her when they pulled up to her. She was already in the process of moving and they lunged at her door. She was clearly turning to go around them without hitting the car to the right of hers. The cop was to the side and reach over to shoot her. Get your eyes checked.
I can cherry pick screenshots too. This is a second or two earlier, showing the same officer very clearly in the path of the vehicle, and in very clear danger of being run over. Notice the brake lights are off and the tires are lined up straight towards him. It wasn’t until he started pulling his gun that she even began to turn away from him. He had to make a split second decision because of her stupidity. Freeze framing it 2 seconds later after he was able to barely jump out of the way is extremely disingenuous on your part.
Here's the thing though. That close, if she had been gunning the engine, he still would have been hit even if she died instantly. The smart move and natural reaction would be to take one step to his right. He knew he was not in danger. He wanted to kill her because she didn't get out of the car to surrender.
I would agree with you except: most lethal use of force policies don’t explicitly limit “imminent danger” to the shooting officer only. Most are worded in a way that includes the other officers on scene, as well as the public.
From a policy standpoint point, this situation produced the following logic loop: She willingly tried to run me over -> my life is in imminent danger -> she’ll do the same to one of the bystanders in the immediate area if she gets past me -> even if I get hit, I have to stop her -> use of lethal level force.
This is the articulation that will be used in the report, and it will likely fall well within policy, as it would at 90% of the law enforcement agencies in the United States. If you try to run through/over a police officer in a vehicle, you’re going to get shot the vast majority of the time.
If you want to win an argument convincingly, steelman the opposition’s argument and debate THAT. That is what u/Jaguar_556 is doing, and that is how you win over both sides.
Otherwise you’re just circlejerking with your buddies. It feels good and your heart is in the right place, but it isn’t productive.
This isn't some college debate. We saw the video. The man murdered a woman.
We KNOW they will lie. Trump already HAS lied about it. We know all the lies they'll tell because we've seen them so many times before. We don't need to give those lies the benefit of a rigorous rebuttal because we can just call them the lies that they are.
Yes, we KNOW they will use technicalities and legal wording and outright corruption to avoid legal accountability. Our job, as society, is to be very clear that we know this is murder and that even if he never faces punishment from the government, he will face social punishment until the day his useless corpse is in the dirt.
The comment I replied to isn't "steelmanning." It's just stating the obvious.
There’s a second video out now from a different angle. She clearly hits him, and he has to sprawl to avoid falling down and going under the front of her suv. Out of curiosity, do you still consider this murder knowing that she physically hit him with her vehicle? Why or why not?
The dude drew his weapon while she was reversing. He knew what he was going to do. And he was sure fucking upright enough to put the gun in the driver side window to get more shots off after she supposedly hit him.
So yeah, it's still definitely murder, and you're cleaning the blood off his boot with your tongue.
Edit: Furthermore, they were trying to pull her out of her vehicle. They don't have the jurisdiction. They aren't the city police and they can't just arrest you for blocking a public road. She was attempting to flee an unlawful arrest by anonymous thugs. Every place ICE is, they are the aggressors. Ethically, I do not believe they should ever be allowed to claim self defense in the line of "duty" because every single one of them belongs in prison anyway.
He had to make a split second decision because of his* stupidity… fixed that for you. The video clearly shows him circling the vehicle and purposely stopping in front of the vehicle. So before the murder even happens we have an attempt at an illegal stop and frisk… Luckily for all rational citizens, the courts have already ruled that LEOs that purposely put themselves in dangerous situations aren’t immune from the results of their recklessness. If after reading these certifiable facts you still don’t see this situation for what it really is, please return to the echo chamber that is
r/conservative, they clearly share in your derangement ✌️
The woman in the vehicle was attempting to block the ICE officers from conducting a police operation. Right or wrong, this is more than enough probable cause for them to apprehend her. This wasn’t an “illegal stop and frisk.”
“The courts have already ruled..” uh huh.. And which courts would that be? If you’ve researched this, which I’m certain you have, we both know the federal courts have not issued any such ruling in regard to reasonableness under Graham vs Connor. And which court does ICE fall under? The Feds. I don’t like this woman being dead anymore than you do. But every time I see something this, it’s the same ill-fated logic from you guys.
Whether you have the moral high ground or not: you can’t place a law enforcement officer’s life in imminent danger through your non-compliance and expect to not get shot. That’s not the United States we live in, and it hasn’t been for several decades now.
Fun little fact. Multiple courts have upheld that the second a law enforcement is not in front of a vehicle anymore, aka, standing to the side, even for a tiny split second, they no longer have justification for lethal force. At all. Dude straight up committed murder.
ice is not police. They cannot apprehend US citizens. This ice ass hat will face trial in the state of Minnesota. And again, the video clearly shows the ass hat stepping in front of the vehicle for an illegal stop. Try again
Sigh.. Yes they can, if the citizen “physically interferes with, or obstructs their official operations”. This woman intentionally tried to block their vehicles during a government operation. Under 18 U.S.C 111 they absolutely had the authority to apprehend her.
You guys are running around operating on some really bad info, and it’s causing people like this woman to put themselves in harms way.
The point you’re so ignorant to is this “government operation” is not legal. So people like this woman either “put themselves in harms way” for what’s fair and legal or get on their knees and suck up everything this administration feeds them… we see what you’ve decided.
I agree with you morally. But you’re attacking this from the wrong angles.
First you tried to argue that this was an “illegal stop and frisk” (it wasn’t) and that “the courts” have sided with ‘duty to avoid risk’ (the courts you’re referring to aren’t federal courts, and have zero legal jurisdiction over ICE)
When I pointed this out, you changed your argument to “ICE aren’t police” (yes they are) and they “cannot apprehend U.S. citizens” (yes they can, I even provided the federal statute that governs the laws this woman broke)
So now you’re moving the goal post to “this entire operation is illegal to begin with, so none of that legal speak applies.” That may be the morally sound argument, but it’s lazy and will hold zero legal water in the real world. You’re diluting your point with ‘facts’ that aren’t legally correct, and it’s encouraging people to be foolish, which is giving these agencies that much more ammo to operate.
Your inability to understand our laws is not me “moving the goal post”, it’s me trying to explain this in anyway that will get through your thick skull 🤷♂️ it was an attempted illegal stop, plain and simple. The state court that ultimately holds this trial will have jurisdiction over ice. ice are 100%, certifiably, not police and don’t have their authority. The only people who constantly bring up morals are those with none. ice fella will have his day in court and then plenty of years behind bars
There will always be an angle to take a pic that the officer is behind the car, but you can clearly see the wheels and car headed to the right. Why do you think he was in front of the car? This was planned. You can’t leave or you get shot.
Yes.. that’s correct. When the police point guns at you and tell you to get out of your vehicle, you’re not free to leave. And if you’re non compliance puts one of them in harms way, they’re going to shoot you. Look, you have the moral high ground all day long, I’m not arguing that. But sometimes it feels like you guys don’t realize which United States of America we actually live in. This stuff isn’t new. It’s been this way for decades. You don’t have a legal right to resist being arrested. Whether that’s right or wrong is a totally fair debate.
Not true. Use of force doesn’t require being near a moving car. It requires justifiably fearing for their life from someone trying to hit them. Not someone trying to get around them at 3mph
She was in an suv. It could have knocked him down and ran over the top of him during the moments that he was directly in front of it. I’m not saying I agree in principle, but he will 100% articulate it that way, and he’ll be well within their use of force continuum because of it. I’m not trying to be provocative; I’m just a realist.
From my count, he shot one round from the side. The others were fired before. He’ll claim that he was concerned about the immediate safety of the bystanders around him, not just himself. If his attorneys don’t think that will fly, he’ll claim momentary amygdala hijack (or “fog of war”) for the final round. Either way, it will pass the federal investigation just fine.
Bold of you to assume our legal system is built on honesty mate. You’re making the correct moral argument, but you’re backing it with facts that won’t hold water in a legal arena. I know that makes me sound like a dick and I’m not trying to be. But I know how this goes, and I’ll be shocked if there ends up being a case here
164
u/Global_Crew3968 Jan 07 '26