By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Sign up for OPB’s “First Look” newsletter to receive a curated daily digest of the most significant news and culture stories from across the Northwest directly to your inbox. This essential daily guide ensures readers stay informed about key developments and trending topics impacting the region. “First Look” offers a concise and convenient way to stay updated on the Northwest’s most important news and cultural narratives.
Read the original article here
New footage has surfaced, offering a stark, visual account of a confrontation in Portland involving U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents and two individuals. This newly released security camera footage provides a perspective, previously unseen, on the incident where two people were shot by immigration agents last month. The video originates from Fora Health, a medical provider situated in East Portland, whose security cameras captured the events unfolding in the parking lot. It was in this very lot that a team of six Border Patrol agents encountered Luis David Nino-Moncada and Yorlenys Betzabeth Zambrano-Contreras, both identified as immigrants from Venezuela.
The footage depicts a scene where six U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents, operating from four vehicles, confronted the two individuals. These agents were reportedly attempting to apprehend Nino-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras while they were seeking medical attention. Within moments, the video shows a truck, driven by Nino-Moncada, reversing and appearing to make contact with a sedan parked nearby. Nino-Moncada then maneuvers the truck forward and backward in an apparent attempt to extricate himself from the situation. Following this maneuver, the truck drives out of the camera’s view. Subsequently, Nino-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras are reported to have driven to a nearby apartment complex and contacted 911.
A crucial detail that remains unclear from the available footage is the precise moment at which the Border Patrol agents opened fire. Nino-Moncada sustained a gunshot wound to his arm, while Zambrano-Contreras was shot in the chest. Representatives from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security have not yet provided an immediate comment on the matter. Federal officials have asserted that their agents only discharged their firearms after Nino-Moncada collided with the sedan. An attorney representing Nino-Moncada has declined to comment at this time.
The use of force policy regarding firearms and moving vehicles is quite specific. Generally, firearms are not to be discharged solely to disable a moving vehicle. Exceptions are made only in very narrow circumstances: if a person in the vehicle is threatening an officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle itself, or if the vehicle is being operated in a manner that poses a threat of death or serious injury to the officer or others, and no other reasonable means of defense are available, including moving out of the vehicle’s path. Discharging firearms from a moving vehicle is also restricted, permitted only in exigent circumstances where an officer has an articulable reason for such a use of deadly force.
The presence of Border Patrol agents in Portland, an area not typically considered a border region, raises questions for many. The argument for their deployment often centers on the fact that Portland falls within a 100-mile radius of the Pacific Ocean, which is considered a border zone. This 100-mile zone encompasses a significant portion of the U.S. population. The authority for Border Patrol to operate in these zones is a point of contention, with some suggesting it allows for broad application of their powers.
The incident has ignited discussions about the justification for using deadly force, particularly when involving a vehicle collision. The contention that colliding with a car automatically justifies deadly force is met with skepticism, given the established guidelines for the use of force. The broader implications of such encounters, especially concerning individuals seeking medical care, have led to concerns about the government’s approach to immigration enforcement and the potential for fear to be instilled in the populace.
There’s a palpable sense of disillusionment expressed by some regarding the use of federal agencies and the perceived erosion of rights. The sentiment is that such agencies, intended for specific purposes, can be weaponized against the very people they are meant to serve. The notion that being an “alleged immigrant” could be construed as a justification for lethal force is deeply troubling to many. The legal framework governing these encounters, and whether it is being adhered to, remains a central point of discussion.
The effectiveness and ethical considerations of immigration enforcement are complex. While the need for immigration enforcement is acknowledged by many, the methods employed by certain agencies are questioned. There’s a call for immigration enforcement that is not characterized by cruelty or callousness, and a desire for reform that addresses systemic issues rather than relying on what some perceive as inhumane practices. The historical context of agencies like DHS, and the promises made at their inception, are often revisited in light of current events, leading to accusations of broken trust and a system designed for expediency over humanity.
The broad interpretation of “border zones” to include areas near international airports, extending the reach of Border Patrol far from physical borders, further complicates the issue. This expansive interpretation, where an international airport is equated to a border entry point for the purpose of enforcement, blurs the lines of jurisdiction and raises concerns about the scope of federal authority within the country. The lack of legislative action to curtail such perceived abuses of authority is also a point of criticism.
The discussion also touches upon the role of the military and the government’s potential reliance on its support. There is an underlying concern about maintaining a disciplined and rule-bound military versus a force that might act as a mere instrument of the state. The sentiment among those in the military, often expressed cautiously, suggests a wariness of the current administration and a commitment to upholding established protocols, including the need for consensus among leadership before engaging in actions that could be politically charged.
Ultimately, the footage from Fora Health serves as a stark reminder of the realities of immigration enforcement and the critical need for transparency, accountability, and adherence to established use-of-force policies. The visual evidence presented offers a new dimension to the ongoing dialogue about the powers and responsibilities of federal agencies operating within communities far from the nation’s borders. It fuels a demand for answers and a commitment to ensuring that justice and the rule of law prevail in all such encounters.