By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identified two individuals shot in Portland, Oregon, as suspected associates of the Tren de Aragua gang, alleging the shooting occurred after a driver “weaponized their vehicle” against a Border Patrol agent. The driver, Luis David Nico Moncada, and passenger, Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras, were identified as “criminal illegal aliens from Venezuela” who had entered the U.S. in 2022 and 2023 respectively. DHS further claimed Moncada had a DUI and vehicle misuse arrest and that Contreras was involved in a prostitution ring and a prior shooting. Local leaders and officials, including the Oregon Governor and Portland Mayor, have called for investigations, transparency, and accountability regarding the shooting.
Read the original article here
Two people shot by CBP in Portland identified—Everything we know, and the air is thick with skepticism. It’s hard not to be cynical when the official narrative feels so… incomplete. We’re talking about a shooting in Portland, allegedly involving CBP, and the details are as murky as a drizzly Oregon afternoon. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is saying two individuals were shot and that they are suspected associates of the Tren de Aragua gang, a transnational criminal organization. But, with a story like this, where do we even begin?
The core of the issue, and what’s causing so much pushback, centers on the government’s account of events. DHS claims the driver “weaponized their vehicle” against Border Patrol, prompting an agent to fire in self-defense. However, initial reports from witnesses paint a different picture, suggesting the officers shot at the vehicle *as it was driving away*. One witness even described officers firing several shots at the truck as it fled, with the shots going through the side of the vehicle. This is drastically different from the official story of a direct threat. This discrepancy alone throws a massive wrench into the narrative.
The timeline is also problematic. According to reports, the shooting occurred around 102nd and Main. The injured individuals then drove roughly 2.7 miles to 141st and Burnside before calling for help. Why didn’t the officers pursue? Why were they allowed to drive away, bleeding? These are valid questions that demand answers. The narrative doesn’t quite add up. And the fact that the FBI is reportedly handling the investigation, potentially limiting transparency with local law enforcement, doesn’t help. The public deserves to know the full story, and that requires independent verification.
The details are so sparse, it feels like we’re grasping at straws. The potential for misrepresentation and manipulation of facts is high, especially considering the current political climate. The term “weaponizing a vehicle” is concerning, considering the past incidents with similar wording, and the need for more concrete evidence. It echoes the language used in past situations, raising red flags that undermine public trust. The lack of visual evidence, like body camera footage, is glaring. Where is the proof to back up these claims? It’s reasonable to expect transparency from law enforcement.
The official narrative also includes a link to the Tren de Aragua gang. Now, it’s certainly possible that these individuals have ties to this criminal group. But, the immediate labeling of individuals as gang members, combined with the lack of supporting evidence, makes it difficult to take this claim at face value. It’s a convenient label, and one that is often used to justify the use of force, which adds fuel to the fire. We’ve seen how easily such accusations can be used to paint a specific picture.
The history of misinformation and questionable actions by agencies like ICE and CBP is also significant. The public is right to be skeptical, especially after previous incidents where official stories have been proven false or misleading. This is not about being anti-law enforcement. This is about demanding accountability and transparency.
The lack of action taken by authorities after the shooting is suspicious. If the individuals were perceived as such a threat, why didn’t the officers pursue them? Why weren’t they immediately apprehended and medical aid provided? The fact that they were allowed to flee, and then later arrested at a hospital, raises serious questions about the initial assessment of the threat.
The speed with which the official story was released, and the lack of readily available evidence, does not inspire confidence. The public deserves a thorough, impartial investigation with complete transparency. Until then, any claim made by CBP or DHS must be carefully scrutinized and independently verified. This situation should serve as a reminder of the need for open and honest communication, especially in incidents that involve the use of force.