By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An ICE officer, Israel D. Hernandez, called 911 after an unidentified teenager on a bicycle began tailing his unmarked vehicle and punching its window. During the call, Hernandez threatened to shoot the individual if police did not arrive quickly, citing frustration and fear. The teenager eventually fled the scene before law enforcement arrived, leaving the ICE officer and the incident to be documented by the Portland Police Bureau. This event occurred during a period of heightened tensions between federal immigration enforcement and the city of Portland.
Read the original article here
The unsettling transcript of a 911 call placed by an armed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer in Portland, Oregon, paints a stark picture of a tense confrontation that nearly turned deadly. The officer, identified as Israel D. Hernandez, expressed his intention to shoot a “kid” on a motorized bicycle, who he felt was tailing his unmarked vehicle. This alarming statement, made on October 3rd, at 3:30 p.m. in Northeast Portland, raises serious questions about the officer’s judgment, training, and the very nature of the encounter itself. The core of the issue lies in the officer’s immediate escalation to lethal force as a perceived solution to a situation that, from the dispatcher’s perspective, offered a far simpler alternative: driving away.
The officer’s distress was palpable as he informed the 911 dispatcher, “I need someone here now, or else I’m going to have to shoot this kid.” This declaration immediately flags a critical disconnect between the perceived threat and the proposed response. The fact that a law enforcement officer, tasked with upholding the law and protecting the public, would so readily resort to such extreme language in a situation involving a young person on a bicycle suggests a profound lack of de-escalation skills or an overwhelming sense of personal insecurity. The dispatcher’s pragmatic suggestion, “you… can drive away,” highlights the absurdity of the officer’s stance, underscoring that lethal force was far from the only, or even a reasonable, option.
The incident reveals a concerning aspect of how some ICE officers apparently perceive their interactions with the public, particularly when they feel challenged or perceived as being followed. The narrative suggests that the officer’s primary response to being “harassed” by a “kid” was not one of strategic evasion or calm observation, but rather a panicked call to 911, preemptively justifying the potential use of his weapon. This approach points to a perceived lack of proper training, tactical experience, or frankly, the common sense expected of someone entrusted with firearms and law enforcement authority. The notion that the only thing preventing a shooting was the child’s decision to ride away, rather than established legal protocols and adequate officer training, is a chilling thought.
Furthermore, the officer’s pronouncement that he “has to shoot this kid” underscores a critical misunderstanding of the law, particularly concerning the grounds for lethal force. There was no indication that the child posed an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm that would justify such an extreme measure. The act of calling 911 and vocalizing this intention before any physical confrontation escalated strongly suggests that any subsequent shooting would have been perceived as premeditated, rather than a spontaneous act of self-defense. This premeditation, born from an apparent inability to manage a perceived annoyance, is deeply troubling and points to a potential predisposition towards violence.
The commentary surrounding this event often criticizes the perceived inadequacy of ICE officer training, suggesting that a mere 47 days of training is insufficient for individuals tasked with such critical responsibilities. While training is undoubtedly a crucial component, many argue that the fundamental issue here transcends mere procedural shortcomings. The problem, as articulated by some, lies not just in a lack of training, but in a fundamental lack of conscience and an abundance of malice, suggesting that even extensive training might not rectify an inherent propensity for aggression or prejudice. This perspective posits that the issue is more deeply rooted in the caliber of individuals being recruited and the lack of severe consequences for their actions, even when those actions are reckless and potentially lethal.
The characterization of the individual on the bike as a “suspect” in some early accounts is also noteworthy. Without concrete evidence of wrongdoing described in the incident itself, beyond the officer’s perception of being followed, labeling the child as such implies a presumption of guilt. This can create a dangerous narrative, framing the young person as inherently problematic, when the actual offense, if any, was simply riding a bicycle in the vicinity of an ICE vehicle. The article, as understood, does not detail criminal acts performed by the “kid” beyond the officer’s own claims of being followed, and potentially, the suggestion of window punching or mirror knocking, which is not definitively established.
The incident brings to light the broader concerns about the role and conduct of ICE officers, with some commenters expressing strong opinions about the agency’s personnel. The sentiment is that officers who exhibit such a low threshold for perceived threats and immediate resort to discussing lethal force are unfit for their positions. There’s a strong suggestion that such individuals, prone to “Karen-ing the fuck out” and making dire threats, are not suited for roles involving weapons and public interaction, and that they would falter in confronting genuinely dangerous individuals. The hope expressed by many is that such officers will eventually face consequences, possibly through imprisonment or deportation, serving as a stark example.
Ultimately, the disturbing pronouncement by the ICE officer – “I’m going to have to shoot this kid” – serves as a powerful, albeit grim, illustration of a breakdown in judgment and de-escalation. The fact that this utterance was made during a 911 call, rather than in a desperate, cornered moment, suggests an alarming readiness to deploy deadly force. The intervention of the 911 dispatcher, however, was crucial in preventing a potential tragedy, reminding us that even in the most heated situations, alternatives to violence almost always exist. The incident compels a deeper examination of the training, screening, and accountability measures within ICE, ensuring that those entrusted with the power of life and death possess the temperament, judgment, and restraint necessary for such a profound responsibility.