By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Federal authorities are investigating two immigration officers for allegedly making untruthful statements under oath concerning recent shootings. This probe follows at least five incidents where initial descriptions by immigration officials were later contradicted by video evidence, including the fatal shootings in Minneapolis of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. A federal judge recently dismissed felony assault charges against two Venezuelan men after new video evidence disproved allegations made by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, who had fired a shot that injured one of the men. These cases highlight a pattern of discrepancies between official accounts and visual evidence regarding the use of force by immigration agents.
Read the original article here
The recent shooting of a Venezuelan man in Minnesota, where video evidence appears to directly contradict the initial accounts provided by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is sadly not an isolated incident. This situation highlights a disturbing pattern where official narratives from ICE are being challenged, and often outright disproven, by readily available video footage. It raises serious questions about transparency and accountability within the agency, suggesting that deliberate falsehoods might be employed to obscure the truth.
There’s a strong sentiment that when video evidence demonstrably shows a different reality than what ICE is presenting, it’s not just a simple “mistake” or “miscommunication.” Instead, it’s being perceived as a calculated cover-up, an attempt to manipulate public perception and avoid facing consequences for their actions. The argument is that if ordinary citizens lied under oath or submitted false police reports, it would be a criminal offense, yet these “paramilitary thugs” within ICE seem to operate with a disturbing lack of accountability, leading some to label their actions as criminal.
The tactic described – presenting a version of events that is demonstrably false and then hoping that the sheer volume of incidents and public fatigue will make people stop paying attention – seems to be a recurring theme. The hope, it appears, is that the public will eventually become so accustomed to these “errors” that they’ll tune out, allowing the agency to continue with its operations without scrutiny. However, the persistent emergence of video evidence suggests this strategy is proving less effective than anticipated.
It’s particularly concerning how often these discrepancies seem to benefit the officers involved. The observation is that official reports never accidentally make a suspect seem *less* dangerous; the pattern consistently points towards an inflation of threat or justification for force. This consistent skewing of information, when juxtaposed with unedited video, creates a stark and often damning contrast, fueling distrust and suspicion.
The idea that all law enforcement, not just ICE, might be trained to lie is a sentiment that underlies much of the frustration and is a driving force behind movements like “ACAB.” When official statements are consistently at odds with reality captured on video, it erodes faith not only in the specific agency but in the broader system of law enforcement and government transparency. This incident in Minnesota is seen as just another instance, unfortunately, joining a growing list of cases where the official story has been severely undermined by visual evidence.
The notion that ICE operates with near-zero accountability is a recurring critique. The argument is that ICE agents who are involved in deadly force incidents must be held accountable under the rule of law, just like any other citizen. Without such accountability, the agency is perceived as being able to act with impunity, further perpetuating the cycle of distrust and alleged misconduct. The lack of transparency and the seeming willingness to present false narratives contribute to this perception of unchecked power.
This situation is particularly troubling when viewed in the context of the feds anticipating that civilian video would torpedo their cases. It suggests a strategic awareness within ICE of the potential for their accounts to be challenged by footage, yet they continue to proceed in ways that invite such contradiction. The governor and mayor declaring victory in certain situations, even as these incidents unfold, is seen as premature and perhaps a way to downplay the severity of the ongoing issues.
The comparison is drawn to other situations involving vehicles where ICE often claims “they tried to run us over” as their justification for opening fire. This is highlighted as a concerning default excuse, especially considering that protocol often advises against opening fire on a vehicle, as it can create an uncontrolled projectile that could cause more harm. The perceived arrogance of trying to block a vehicle with one’s body, rather than de-escalating, is also criticized.
The core of the issue for many observers is the apparent deliberate misrepresentation of facts. When clear evidence contradicts an official statement, it’s not a matter of simple human error. It’s seen as a systemic problem, a deliberate choice to lie and deceive. The expectation is that ICE agents involved in shootings must be held accountable, and that a pattern of deception, if proven, should lead to legal repercussions.
The general assumption for some is that anything emanating from certain parts of the administration or from agencies perceived as “professional liars” is likely fabricated until proven otherwise by concrete evidence. This skepticism is a direct consequence of repeated instances where official accounts have been debunked. The desire for a “reality check” for those who believe they can simply invent narratives on video and have them accepted without question is palpable.
There’s a belief that all police officers, by extension, are trained to lie, which is why sentiments like “ACAB” resonate. The Minnesota shooting is presented as another clear example, where the story told by ICE clashes directly with what video has captured. The call for continued protest and activism is strong, as is the concern for the future of democracy if such practices are allowed to continue unchallenged.
The international perspective is also notable, with individuals from other countries expressing shock and respect for those fighting for accountability. The comfort and perceived complacency in some societies are contrasted with the vigilance required to address such issues. The belief is that sustained effort is crucial to prevent a situation from becoming irrevocably worse.
The overarching message is that standard operating procedure seems to involve lying in official reports, demonizing the victim, and hoping that no one is filming. The repetition of these alleged tactics across multiple incidents suggests a deeply ingrained problem within the agency. The call for accountability is not just about individual incidents but about addressing a systemic failure to uphold truth and justice.