By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A tense situation quickly turned dangerous when a 37-year-old woman in Minneapolis engaged in a confrontation with ICE agents. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem labeled the woman’s actions as “domestic terrorism,” citing her failure to comply with officers’ directives and her alleged attempt to harm an officer with her vehicle. President Donald Trump echoed this assessment, stating the woman “violently, willfully and viciously ran over the ICE officer.”
Read the original article here
ICE agent was not in the vehicle’s path when he fired at driver, video shows.
The evidence, as presented by multiple videos, leaves little room for doubt: the ICE agent, the individual who ultimately pulled the trigger, was not directly in the path of the vehicle at the time he fired. All available footage consistently shows that the agent was positioned to the side of the car, and certainly not in a position where he was imminently threatened by the vehicle’s movement.
A series of actions taken by other individuals leading up to the shooting, are concerning in their own right. One individual is seen rapidly approaching the vehicle, grabbing the handle and reaching inside, perhaps attempting to seize control. The deliberate placement of these individuals, coupled with the agent’s positioning, creates a chilling narrative: a set up where there was no chance to avoid being put in a dangerous situation. It seems the goal was to manufacture a scenario where deadly force could be justified. The agent’s decision to fire, under these circumstances, becomes all the more questionable.
The visual evidence from the shooting is compelling. The bullet’s trajectory, evidenced by the bullet hole in the driver’s side window, aligns with the agent’s position being to the side. Moreover, the driver’s actions just before the shooting, notably turning the steering wheel, suggest an attempt to evade the situation. The driver’s intent to escape the situation, combined with the agent’s deliberate aim, raises serious questions about the use of lethal force.
The presence of masked agents, armed with guns, raises further questions. Why are these individuals, whose primary task supposedly revolves around civil law enforcement, appearing in this paramilitary fashion? The speed at which they resorted to deadly force, without exploring alternative tactics such as shooting the tires or letting the driver leave, further underscores concerns about their training and mindset. This whole situation is raising the specter of state-sponsored domestic terrorism, where the enforcement of civil laws appears to be weaponized.
The fact that the FBI shut down the investigation is concerning. It effectively prevents a full and impartial assessment of the events. This decision sends a clear message about the lack of accountability and the potential for a cover-up. The shooting, given the context and video evidence, appears to be a clear case of murder. The agent’s actions, or lack thereof, are not indicative of a need to defend himself.
The narrative surrounding the shooting is often manipulated, and some try to justify the agent’s actions by pointing at the driver’s actions. However, even if the driver was somehow considered threatening, the agent’s response was not in line with established protocols. If the agent had actually been in the path of the car, he still had the option of moving aside. The decision to shoot shows a reckless disregard for the value of human life. The Department of Homeland Security’s policy of not shooting a moving vehicle, unless it is being used to imminently threaten deadly force, and that there are no other reasonable options available, would have been appropriate to consider in this case.
The agent’s actions show a clear violation of this policy. The agent seems to have been more interested in shooting than in exercising restraint, reflecting a pattern of over-reach and lack of accountability within these agencies.
The FBI’s involvement in taking over the investigation should be considered a cause for alarm. The video evidence contradicts the claims of self-defense. This case highlights a disturbing trend of overreach and the need for accountability. The shooting represents a blatant abuse of power and disregard for human life.