By John Q. Hosedrinker 
On Thursday, a Border Patrol agent shot two individuals in Portland, Oregon, following a traffic stop. The Department of Homeland Security stated the agent acted in self-defense after the driver attempted to use the vehicle as a weapon. The driver, Luis David Nino-Moncada, has been charged with aggravated assault of a federal officer, and authorities allege both individuals are associated with the Tren de Aragua gang. The incident sparked immediate backlash from local officials, with the Oregon Attorney General launching an investigation, and calls for federal agencies to cease operations in the city. The FBI is leading the investigation with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Read the original article here
Man shot by Border Patrol in Portland, Oregon, is charged with aggravated assault on federal officer for alleged car attack, and this is where the story begins. The Department of Justice has brought charges against Luis David Nino-Moncada, one of the two individuals shot by a Border Patrol agent last week in Portland. He’s facing aggravated assault charges, specifically for allegedly using his car to attack a federal law enforcement vehicle. Furthermore, he’s also charged with causing damage to federal property, with the damages exceeding $1,000. It’s a serious situation, and Nino-Moncada was scheduled for an initial court appearance.
This case immediately raises questions. Footage of the incident is critical, and its absence leaves a significant void. One aspect that adds complexity is the potential bullet trajectory. The possibility of a single bullet striking two people is plausible, but the specifics of the shooting are essential to understanding the events. The analysis offered suggests that the officer would have had to fire through the driver’s side window. The alternative scenario of the officer firing from the front, in an attempt to stop a car attack, undermines the single bullet, multiple wounds theory. If the shooting did take place through the side window, that, as with similar cases, could cast further doubt on the justification of the shooting.
The phrase “car attack” is quickly becoming a red flag, and the article from The Nation, cited in the information, raises the troubling question of whether this tactic is being used to justify shootings. The accusations suggest that Border Patrol agents might be stepping in front of vehicles to manufacture situations that justify the use of deadly force. In this environment, trust is eroded, and the focus turns to accountability. The comments express a deep-seated distrust of the government and a skepticism towards the official narrative. There is a sense of resignation, and the assertion that “the feds are guilty until proven innocent” is a strong sentiment.
The rhetoric is intense. The comments suggest that ICE and other federal agencies are acting with impunity. The demand for accountability is loud and clear: “How many dead civilians is enough?” The response to the official narrative is one of outright disbelief, and it reflects a belief that these agencies will say anything to justify their actions. The call for dashcams to act as witnesses is a clear sign that the public is preparing for a world in which surveillance is the only way to safeguard oneself against unjust accusations.
The core of the issue boils down to trust. The assertion is that the government is lying, that the charges are trumped-up, and that the individuals involved will not face adequate consequences. There are accusations that ICE is lying, and the focus is on a lack of transparency and an absence of respect for the law. These accusations suggest that the agents shot first and then made up their story, in order to conceal their actions. The comments also include references to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, where, according to the comments, the government’s narrative crumbled under scrutiny.
The central question raised is how to hold these authorities accountable. The comments express the opinion that shooting someone and then leaving the scene is not the action of law enforcement, but rather, one of criminals. The call for “jury nullification” highlights a distrust of the legal system and a belief that a jury might reject the government’s case. The sentiment is that the agents will claim self-defense, and their version of the events is inherently unreliable.
The focus shifts to the lack of transparency surrounding the case. If an attempt was made to run over the officer, why weren’t the officers harmed? The accusations are strong and accuse the media of being an accessory to the lies. The commentary suggests that “car attack” scenarios have become all too common, and the question is whether they are justified. The skepticism in the face of the official statements and a call for hard evidence are essential here.
The implication is that there is a pattern of lying and fabricating narratives to justify the use of excessive force. It’s hard to accept the official account without proof. In the absence of video footage or other evidence, the assumption is that the government is trying to set a precedent. The case is seen as a way of preparing for the trial of the ICE murderer in Minnesota.
Ultimately, this is a story about the breakdown of trust. The presumption of good faith is gone, and the only recourse, in the eyes of the commentators, is to treat the government as guilty until proven innocent. The commenters strongly suggest that the individuals involved in the shooting were not innocent. It is a cautionary tale, illustrating how government agencies and officials are viewed with deep suspicion, and a lack of faith in the law.