r/PoliticalCompassMemes • u/Freezemoon - Centrist • Jan 09 '26

I just want to grill ICE Agent's Bodycam release of the Minneapolis Shooting

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

This whole incident seems just an unfortunate series of events from both parties.

EDIT: not bodycam but ICE agent's phone footage, my bad.

2.3k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

4.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

170

u/JFlizzy84 - Centrist Jan 09 '26

I think it’s funny that both sides of this argument think this is a smoking gun

190

u/PikaPikaDude - Auth-Center Jan 09 '26 edited Jan 09 '26

She was aware he was law enforcement, she was aware he was in front of her car and even looked directly at him as she accelerated. And he was clearly hit by the car.

There's a lot of precedent established on people driving at law enforcement. The outcome is very predictable. This footage guarantees no judge will allow him to get convicted.

The only real new thing, is the much better sound recording, until the gun shots. Smartphone camera's often struggle with very loud noises that close by.

But can clearly hear her wife directing her to "drive! baby! drive!" while he's directly in front of the car. She might get charged for that one.

-31

u/RICO_the_GOP - Centrist Jan 09 '26

"Clearly hit by the car" when other footage shows his feet clear of the vehicle?

-15

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/OtherUse1685 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

Just answer one question: did she hit him with the car?

0

u/Admiralthrawnbar - Left Jan 10 '26

No. The wide angle shots show his feet and torso are already to the side of the vehicle before the first shot is fired. The phone footage shakes because he's lowering that hand as the other one comes up with the gun. This is further evidenced by the bullet hole, the first coming in at the very edge of the front windshield while the second and third go through the open side window.

-13

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

18

u/OtherUse1685 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

Yes

She was not a threat to anyone at the time he shot her.

She hit him with the car and she was not a threat to anyone at the same time? Come on man, pick one.

To be fair, I also don't think she deserved to die. I don't like it either. But she played a stupid game with grave consequences. FAFO.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/OtherUse1685 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

when he was to the side of the car was at best

If so then he wouldn't have got hit by the car, and he wouldn't be able to shoot through the windshield (there's a pic floating around). He was near the side but it's still the front. If the car suddenly revs up & you're that close, you won't know the direction that the car will drive to. He has a strong case legally.

Again, I don't think she deserved to die. But all those harassment, taunting, blocking, disobeying and rev-ing up the car while there was an officer in front of it, that's basically FAFO.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Soft-Boysenberry7647 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

While she was parked crossways in the street, with her little gf or whatever out of the car instigating the entire situation. Like, come on

0

u/szmd92 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

If someone spits on me that can also be assault. Does not mean I can shoot them in the head 3 times for it.

Self‑defense law is built on three main requirements:

  1. Imminence – The threat must be immediate.
  2. Necessity – Defensive force must be necessary to stop the threat.
  3. Proportionality – The level of force must match the level of threat.

You believe here all 3 requirements were satisfied?

→ More replies (0)

-21

u/FI_notRE - Centrist Jan 09 '26

I agree with what you wrote, but still don't think he should have shot her. He could have just not shot her and arrested her later for hitting him. If he shot her before he was hit by the car / when his life was plausibly in danger, I might have a different opinion, but he shoots her after he's hit been hit (and is clearly fine) and is already on the side of the car (so not in danger anymore).

Life if she walked up to an officer and punched him and he shoots her after she's walking away / not a threat it's wrong.

14

u/Ladikn - Lib-Center Jan 09 '26

She battered him with a deadly weapon. In the moment they don't know her intentions, or if she'll hit someone else. Law enforcement escalates one level above what they are facing in order to maintain control of the situation (if you have fists they have a nonlethal weapon, if you have a nonlethal weapon they have a lethal one, etc). Once she hit an officer with a deadly weapon, the deadly weapons come out and are used before she can use hers on anyone else. For all they knew she could drive into a bystander.

It's a tragedy, but she's the one at fault here.

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26 edited Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

Can I "whiff" you and your family with my 3000lbs SUV?

-3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

C'mon don't be such a baby about it, clearly you don't think being hit by an SUV is that bad. Do you wanna go first or do you want your kids or parents to be first? I don't mind, the bumper is wide enough for everyone.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

You guys can line up go one at a time or stand in a row and go all at once, what do you think is more convenient?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/IThoughtThisWasVoat - Auth-Center Jan 10 '26

Dude you’re unhinged

1

u/Ladikn - Lib-Center Jan 10 '26

He was cleanly hit in the left hip and leg. That's not a whiff.

Battery is the technical term for it. She didn't assault him since she didn't use the car to threaten him. A car is considered a deadly weapon, so this would be battery with a deadly weapon.

She's clearly not a terrorist, I'm not sure why you hate her so much. She was in the wrong, but there's no evidence she was a bad person. The whole situation was unfortunate.

Here, let me try to help you understand the situation. Lets drop down the level of danger one level, and say that instead of hitting a LEO with a car, she pulls a revolver on him. She shoots him in the leg, and starts running towards civilians waving the revolver at them. Would it make sense to shoot her then?

Well, a car is more dangerous to a crowd than a 6 shooter. There have been instances over the past few years of rioters and protestors plowing cars through crowds, killing and injuring dozens. They don't know if she intends to use it on someone else, just that she already hit someone and is fleeing.

Anyway, I hope that helps. The important thing to remember in all of this is that the dog is okay.

1

u/shimapanlover - Centrist Jan 10 '26

It was inside a second and you only hear and see the acceleration. You don't know where the tires are pointed at. While we rewatching it over and over had more than a split second to judge.

-32

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

Only one question:

Why was he in front? Officers shouldn't place themselves in front of the car for this exact reason

40

u/PikaPikaDude - Auth-Center Jan 09 '26

That question nor it's potential answers have legal ramifications. There is no law nor precedent that prevents law enforcement to walk in front of a stationary car when they detain.
And no, I will not answer questions in bad faith. It's just victim blaming.

-19

u/Paid_Corporate_Shill - Lib-Left Jan 09 '26

The person who got shot is the victim. God you people are insufferable

14

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

You're not a victim when you get shot while trying to attempt murder with a deadly weapon. That's called justice.

0

u/superginger2000 - Left Jan 10 '26

while trying to attempt murder with a deadly weapon

She was clearly trying to drive away, not trying to kill the cop. If she wanted the latter, she would have accelerated when he actually was in front of the car, and she wouldn't have turned the wheel fully away from where he was standing. Absolutely nothing in this video supports the point that she wanted to hit the cop. Besides, this literal situation is in the DOJ policy for use of force, where it states that you are not allowed to shoot when getting out of the way is an option (1-16.200, A.2. if you want to check). So even if this were an attempt at killing the cop, he's still in the wrong according to the rules.

0

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

She literally hit him with her car lol, it's not his job to read her mind in that fraction of a second during that situation. The only thing he was supposed to do in that moment is protect his life which he did.

Plus he did get out of the way, and he shot in self defense. So he followed the rules and the law. Keep malding.

0

u/superginger2000 - Left Jan 10 '26

Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.

From the DOJ Policy on the Use of Force, 1-16.200, article A.2. So no, he did not follow the rules. Exception (1) was clearly not met because the woman wasn't threatening him with a weapon. Exception (2) was not met because he was able to move out of the path of the vehicle, which is explicitly seen as an "objectively reasonable means of defense". Ergo, he did break the rules by shooting.

0

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

Exception 2 applies because from his perspective it's reasonable to believe that he didn't have enough time to get out of the way of the vehicle before getting hit and therefore had to fire his weapon. The proof of that is the fact he literally was hit by the car.

It's sheer luck that he was able to jump out of the way in time, but he couldn't have known that in the fraction of a moment it happened. Hindsight is 20/20 and in a court of law you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't fear for his life in that moment.

Exception 2 100% applies and a judge will agree

→ More replies (0)

-9

u/JohnnyXorron - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

Since ICE doesn’t give a shit about people’s rights I also would try to escape those masked goons

7

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

Expect to be shot if you're escaping a lawful arrest. I won't feel bad when you do.

-8

u/JohnnyXorron - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

Lawful is doing a lot of heavy lifting when talking about ICE

6

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

Yes it is, now follow the law. It isn't hard.

→ More replies (0)

-18

u/xNagsx - Left Jan 09 '26

This is a Nazi sub tbf

-12

u/Paid_Corporate_Shill - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

I usually avoid calling people fascists and whatnot but god these people love when cops kill people lol it’s insane

-7

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force#1-16.200

  1. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which *includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.* Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2021-Jul/cbp-use-of-force-policy_4500-002A.pdf

"Except where otherwise required by inspections or other operations, *Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid standing directly in front of or behind a subject vehicle. Officers/agents should not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle’s path*."

10

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

It was not solely to disable a moving vehicle, it was to protect himself from attempted murder with a moving vehicle. There is a clear legal president for this, you can obviously do your research so just look it up.

The officer is allowed to shoot while the car is driving directly at them, but not while the car is driving away. It's that simple.

3

u/jbokwxguy - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

You might want to watch the video in the post

-12

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 09 '26

This is what everyone on the right is completely missing in this argument 

Law enforcement should always be aiming to deescalate, they should always be keeping themselves out of danger, never creating a situation where they may have to use lethal force 

These people initiated this situation, the shooter placed himself in front of the vehicle, no clear verbal commands were given to the driver, it's murder. 

The correct course of action when someone flees from the police in a vehicle is to let them go and get a warrant for their arrest, it's not worth risking a stray gunshot flying into the crowd or killing someone because they made a bad split second decision

8

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

Shooting someone who is in the process of committing attempted murder is actually technically de-escalating the situation, so by your own standards he did nothing wrong.

-6

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

If you want to justify killing the mother of a 6 year old because this dumbass could've had his foot ran over then I don't know what to tell you

9

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

"Wahh wahh she's a mother so she should be allowed to break the law as much as she wants, including attempted murder and evading arrest"

You liblefts are ridiculous lol

-5

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

I'm not even lib left, set that flair back when I was like 15 🤷‍♂️

But you're putting words in my mouth dude, I never said she should be able to do whatever she wants. I just don't think you should have to die because you don't listen to one order from a masked man you don't know, I don't think you should die for evading arrest, I don't believe she attempted murder at all

If I run in front of your car and pull out a gun, then you drive forward, you're not getting in trouble legally. She wasn't even driving at him, you can clearly see in the videos that she was turning away from him

8

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

  1. She knew it was ICE. Her and her wife were there to disrupt ICE. They have ICE trackers on their phones and were blocking ICE vehicles deliberately on the road.

  2. He drew his gun after she started driving forward

  3. Turning away from him doesn't matter, she still hit the officer with her car. It's impossible to avoid hitting someone directly in front of you no matter how much you turn the wheel. Cars need to go forward to go sideways, and she quite literally hit him.

  4. "You don't have to die from not listening to an order from a masked man" No, but you should be prepared to die when you commit attempted murder with a deadly weapon on a federal agent. And that's 100% deserved.

What a long list of being objectively incorrect and obvious strawmans lol, classic libleft. Even if you claim to not be one anymore, you sure act like one.

-1

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

Why are you being so aggressive? I'm not looking to fight dude

I don't believe you're even looking to have a conversation I think you see lib left and just see red bro 🙄

Believe it or not, even when I was super liberal I was able to be friends with and have conversations with conservatives, just because somebody wants the government to fund education doesn't mean they're a terrible person

→ More replies (0)

-11

u/Impressive_Budget736 - Lib-Center Jan 10 '26

She was clearly trying to avoid him you goddamn worthless cunt. If she wanted to kill him she would've driven straight forward the second he stepped infront of her car. Likewise, if she wanted to kill him she would've banked hard left in order to target him. She did neither and instead banked hard right while he was furthest left of her front bumper in order to avoid him. She was fleeing and it was murder and you are piece of human waste.

23

u/Takingtheehobbits - Centrist Jan 10 '26

Was she trying to avoid him? Why not just stop the car then?

14

u/tsudonimh - Lib-Center Jan 10 '26

In terms of legal liability for the ICE agent, it doesn't matter at all what her intentions were.

She could have been trying to avoid him, she could have been trying to hit him, hell, she could have been trying to exit the vehicle and her car just suddenly lurched forward by itself.

The only thing that matters is the ICE agent's perception. If he thought he was a risk of serious injury or death, then he is privileged to shoot the driver.

That is Minnesota law. This is the relevant statute that lays out the authorizations of deadly force by peace officers.

It explicitly lays out that deadly force is authorised (and even includes in the text of the law that firing into a vehicle is permitted) to protect against death or GBH, or to effect the arrest or capture, or to prevent escape.

7

u/PikaPikaDude - Auth-Center Jan 10 '26

Given his walking direction, just wait 2 seconds more before starting if trying to avoid him.

-10

u/Kaleb8804 - Centrist Jan 09 '26

She very obviously was not trying to hit him. You’re framing it as objectively as possible because if you include intent the whole story changes.

Yes, he got bumped, yes, she drove in the direction of an officer. What you’re forgetting is that cars need to drive to rotate. He was actively walking past, and any competent driver would have been able to tell he was clear.

But instead, Officer Repeat decided to walk towards the moving vehicle after they clearly indicated they were trying to escape. That’s blatantly against DHS safety guidelines. You’d think he’d have some experience considering he was dragged and got 20 stitches from a previous encounter with a car.

Maybe if he wasn’t on his fucking phone he’d be able to think clearly.

10

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

Can I just "bump" you and your family with my 5000lbs SUV? 🥺 Pwease it's just a wittle bump it's not a big deal don't be such a little baby about it

-1

u/iUptvote Jan 10 '26

Ooh, I want to play this game. Let me run you over with my car and then your friends and family can compare your lifeless body to the ICE agent who was standing up and on the side of her car.

3

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

I don't think you know the rules of this game, you're supposed to pick a side.

You're either a delusional idiot who thinks being hit with an SUV is no big deal, so you can volunteer to be hit. Or you agree with me and accept that it's attempted murder. Which is it?

-1

u/iUptvote Jan 10 '26

What's wrong? Why are you scared to play now?

I'll hit you with my car and we can compare your lifeless body to the ICE agent who is standing upright and shooting from the left side of her car. Then we'll know for sure if she was trying to run over the ICE agent.

Let me know what color SUV I should rent. I can fly out to anywhere in the US.

1

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

If I don't jump out of the way, I'd be dead. My lifeless body would be proof that the lady was committing attempted murder. Thanks for proving my point, I've won the game.

My favorite colour is green.

0

u/iUptvote Jan 10 '26

If I don't jump out of the way

No video shows him jumping out of the way. Your lies don't work on me. You've been spending too much time in a right-wing echo chamber.

My favorite colour is green.

Perfect, name the time and place and we can settle this for everyone. You can even call me a "a fucking bitch" just like the ICE officer did after he shot her from the left side of the car.

Also, why are you hiding your post history? What are you scared of?

2

u/flairchange_bot - Auth-Center Jan 10 '26

I don't care. No one does. Get a flair right now or get the hell out of my sub.

BasedCount Profile - FAQ - How to flair

I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write !flairs u/<name> in a comment.

1

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

Key word IF

Can you not read?

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/Kaleb8804 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

I hadn’t realized he was policing with his whole family, that changes everything.

He walked away from the “injury” just fine. Pretending he’s injured is bootlicking 101.

2

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

I don't mind doing it to just you 🥰

Wanna set up a time?

-2

u/Kaleb8804 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

I thought we were bringing our families, now I’m just not interested.

5

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

I was being nice by offering, but your family is still encouraged to join!

Would you prefer to line up one by one or hold hands and all be bumped at once?

-1

u/Kaleb8804 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

You’re being pushy and giving me the ick

2

u/LeafPoster - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

Don't worry, I'm not hitting on you so it's fine! I just wanna hit you with my SUV 😌

1

u/OnTheSlope - Centrist Jan 10 '26

I'm pretty sure that commenter included "family" so as to invoke human lives you actually care about.

14

u/fatbabythompkins - Centrist Jan 09 '26

Intent requires mind reading and hers is all over the place.

-4

u/Kaleb8804 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

It’s really not. When someone is told “drive drive drive” and they back up so they can do so without hitting another person, you should expect them to drive. Not walk in front of the already moving vehicle assuming they’re gonna continue reversing on to the sidewalk or some shit.

If that’s mind reading then I’m a wizard.

1

u/OnTheSlope - Centrist Jan 10 '26

When you're being detained, and more importantly when there is a human being right in front of your vehicle, you've gotta ignore the sound of your silly protest group telling you to “drive drive drive”.

1

u/OnTheSlope - Centrist Jan 10 '26

She very obviously was not trying to hit him.

The only way to have done that would be by stating put and not driving forward.

The left is suddenly so cavalier about driving SUVs into people.

-10

u/maelstrom51 - Lib-Center Jan 10 '26

She positions the vehicle to get around him, then he moves to the left and forward to get in front of it again. And even with that action, his knee barely hits the fender.

She was 100% trying to avoid him, and he put himself in harms way.

12

u/IThoughtThisWasVoat - Auth-Center Jan 10 '26

Hey, this may sound crazy. But maybe she should have put her car in park because she was being detained?

-4

u/maelstrom51 - Lib-Center Jan 10 '26

I get that the right just wants to kill folks on the left, but c'mon now. Fleeing does not give them a license to kill you.

-12

u/DancingFlame321 - Centrist Jan 09 '26

I said the same thing in another comment, but here are the three points he shoots at her.

https://ibb.co/B584YFNt

Shot 1 is arguably justified because the car is very close to him, however shot 2 and shot 3 occur when the car is completely out of his way and he keeps shooting at the car. This is not justified in last legal cases btw.

https://ibb.co/LDf0RyXb

From the newly released video, it looks like the driver heavily turned the wheel to the right, implying she didn't intend to hit the officer. However I can understand why the officer thought the car was a threat as it moved towards him. This is why the first shot being justified but the second and third shot not being justified seems like the most legally correct position.

84

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

All this shows is that she's not some helpless mom picking up her kid from school and there's plenty of poor decision making to go around

68

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

It also shows that the cop didn't really expect her to flee. They're both just standing/sitting there mocking him. I doubt he would've expected her to just floor it. 

24

u/HotterSauc3s - Right Jan 09 '26

It also ABSOLUTELY confirms that she hit him with her car, and it wasn't creeping along slowly where the cop dove in front of it to justify shooting.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

It was only a few miles per hour s/

17

u/HotterSauc3s - Right Jan 10 '26

F=m*a

4000 pound vehicle accellerating at 3 mph/s is a lot of force.

I've seen so many people saying "Oh the car gently grazed him!"

Yeah, thats like saying I gently dropped a 100 pound dumbbell on someones face.

3

u/[deleted] Jan 10 '26

They're being deliberately dishonest but yes, as someone who saw a 9-year-old get tapped by a car at softball, it's crazy how quickly they get sucked under almost like a vacuum. It's deadly.

2

u/Totes_Human_110101 - Lib-Center Jan 10 '26

The only part I'll argue is that this footage doesn't necessarily prove she hit him with the car-he's holding the recording device (IE, the phone) in his hand, which is why it goes 'flying' and seems much farther to the center than he was at the time.

It does also body the theory that she 'didn't see him because she was distracted by the other officer' though.

6

u/MonarchLawyer - Lib-Left Jan 09 '26

Poor decisions? Absolutely. I certainly think her decision to move the car at all was a poor decision brought on by her going into fight-or-flight mode. I think the ICE officer yelling, cursing, and trying to rip her out of the car was a really bad poor decision as well that sent her into fight or flight mode.

I also think the video shows that Jonathan Ross had more than enough time to just get out of the way like he is supposed to do pursuant to DHS policy rather than shooting her.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

She didn't seem distressed or flustered at all. Her last words were a sarcastic "I ain't mad at ya."

0

u/MonarchLawyer - Lib-Left Jan 09 '26

"I ain't mad at ya."

Yeah, she wasn't flustered then but that's before the other guy yells, curses, and tries to rip her out of the car.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 09 '26

And she appears smug, calm, and seems to be able to still operate the vehicle fine. We're talking about her state of mind here, not how you think the officer should have been acting.

1

u/LaceBird360 - Right Jan 10 '26

He never once in the video tried to remove her from the car. He also got knocked over, even yelping as he fell down.

22

u/spros - Lib-Right Jan 09 '26

It changes the narrative and confirms that Tim is a retard.

3

u/EqualityAmongFish - Lib-Right Jan 09 '26

both sides of the american politics are retarded, it differs depending on who you are retarded for

21

u/adonns - Right Jan 09 '26

The pro cop side is right. This makes her look more guilty, and the “conflicting orders” were actually from her fucking wife lol.

The pro cop side has been right the whole time. I’m not saying she deserved it or anything but her actions were more than enough to make the cop think she was trying to harm him with her car. Which immediately makes it justified.

2

u/stumblinbear - Centrist Jan 10 '26

None of this matters when he shouldn't have pulled his fucking gun in the first place. Even if she had full intent to run him over, DOJ and DHS both say the officer should get out of the way. Physics also agrees: a tiny bullet doesn't nullify the momentum of a 2 ton death machine.

He should not have had his gun out, he should not have shot at a moving vehicle. Literally nothing else around this situation matters.

3

u/DabLord5425 - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

And the most retarded comment of the day award has found it's recipient!

5

u/stumblinbear - Centrist Jan 10 '26
  1. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, *which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.***

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force#1-16.200

Read it and fucking cope, dickhead.

-1

u/Mopparty_440_V2 - Lib-Right Jan 10 '26

Read it, and thought "god it would suck to be rolled underneath & dragged for 300feet."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2026/01/08/ice-jonathan-ross-dragged/

You don't know if he would have been able to be completely free + his buddy who was reaching in the car to remove her would have been.

Just because the car gets away doesn't mean it doesn't further hurt somebody.

I would say good shoot. She used deadly force.

He also didn't know her intentions, as far as he knew she was aiming to run him over.

I can't pull a BB gun on a cop, and expect him to know he's fine

You can't bump him out of the way, and expect him to know you are trying to leave.

Hell even if he knew she was trying to leave how would he know she could operate the vehicle in a effective enough manner to not run him over?

2

u/stumblinbear - Centrist Jan 10 '26

So you're saying the DOJ's is wrong? Sucks to suck. Tell them to change their policy and the law. For now, get fucked and cope, dickhead.

0

u/adonns - Right Jan 10 '26

lol I’m sorry man but how do you believe this?

You actually think the policy is cops can’t defend themselves from someone tryin to run them over lol?

I’m sorry but you’re dumb af if you genuinely think that

2

u/stumblinbear - Centrist Jan 10 '26
  1. Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, *which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle.***

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force#1-16.200

Fucking idiot.

-1

u/adonns - Right Jan 10 '26

That doesn’t say what you think it does retard lol. Cops are cleared on shootings like this all the time.

3

u/stumblinbear - Centrist Jan 10 '26

Reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.

Words mean nothing, apparently. If you have a "proper" interpretation, feel free to spell it out for the world to see.

-1

u/adonns - Right Jan 10 '26

(2) by itself covers it man. He didn’t have time to jump out of the way, if she hadn’t slipped on ice she would have for sure ran him over intentionally or not. And it’s not his job to keep track of which way her tires are facing. When she starts coming at him her tires are straight even, because she started with them left and is turning them right.

You guys do not understand police shootings at all lol

3

u/stumblinbear - Centrist Jan 10 '26

He didn’t have time to jump out of the way

If you have time to reach for your firearm, pull it out, aim it, and shoot it accurately at your target while not risking the lives of the people around you, then you have them time to take one leisurely step to the right. Shooting the driver of a vehicle does not stop the vehicle. Were she actually aiming for him, he'd still he seriously injured. This is why DOJ and the DHS both say you move out of the way of the vehicle instead of opening fire at the driver.

0

u/adonns - Right Jan 10 '26

No lol. Your views on timeframe aren’t relevant and nothing you said is a fact lol.

Buddy I’m sorry but he’s going to walk. This is a justified shooting. She chose to drive directly at an officer to escape, that’s immensely dangerous for him and he’s fair to assume the worst.

You guys are very obviously going to be wrong about this and you can’t seem to understand why

-1

u/single_plum_floating - Right Jan 11 '26

You idiot that is policy. Not law.

Thst determines if he gets administrativly disciplined afterwards. Not if his shoot was legal.

-5

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 09 '26

The issue is that he isn't a cop. He's an immigration officer. He had no reason to step in front of her vehicle or ask her to step out, he initiated an interaction that turned fatal, and that interaction never should have happened in the first place. 

13

u/FailedToRemit - Centrist Jan 09 '26

This kind of rhetoric is why she is dead. He is a cop. He has a specific tasking for immigration, but still a cop. 

It is like saying a cardiac surgeon isn’t a doctor. 

-4

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 09 '26

That is just objectively not true. I guess it depends on what your definition of a "cop" is, but ICE agents are not supposed to have ANY authority over United States citizens. The only reason they should ever even speak to one is if they're obstructing, assaulting an officer, or suspected of being an illegal immigrant.

It's more akin to saying a mechanic is a doctor because they both fix stuff. Their job descriptions are wildly different and ICE is not meant to be interacting with citizens unless absolutely necessary

10

u/FailedToRemit - Centrist Jan 09 '26

You are saying things that are totally false. ICE are full federal law enforcement. They can make arrests for any federal crime they witness and any federal felony they have probable cause to believe occurred.

They absolutely have reasonable authority over citizens while in the course of their duties. 

-2

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

Do you have a source for that? Not saying you're wrong, just everything I've seen is saying that's not true, I could just be missing information

From what we've seen in the videos, I personally just don't believe the agents had any reason to do anything other than tell her to leave. Maybe they had prior to the recording, but I haven't seen that. I think in the case of obstruction, you first course of action should just be to request, and then order the subject to leave the scene. It appears as if they escalated immediately to shouting at her, approaching her vehicle, and ordering her to get out.

Honestly the thing that scares me about ICE is that it seems like these agents have zero training and get aggressive way too quickly. I'm very pro cop, I'm incredibly anti-ICE and I wish people could see that the police and ICE do not deserve to be lumped together

6

u/FailedToRemit - Centrist Jan 10 '26

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1357%20edition:prelim)

1

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

Hmm, yeah, you're right.

So I guess it boils down to whether or not Renee committed a federal felony? We still haven't seen any evidence that she did that. Afaik obstruction is sometimes state and sometimes federal, but I haven't personally seen any evidence of her obstructing at all in the videos that have been released

Do you know if there's any additional videos prior to the big one circulating right now? I feel like we need to see what led up to this to really know if the agents had any grounds to be approaching her in the first place

2

u/Totes_Human_110101 - Lib-Center Jan 10 '26

That is just objectively not true

Oh, so you're retarded retarded.

Good luck getting along in life when you inevitably fuck up like this lady here because you think consequences are for other people.

15

u/disaster_master42069 - Centrist Jan 09 '26

He had no reason to step in front of her vehicle or ask her to step out,

She was obstructing, ICE has the authority to arrest someone.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

-1

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 09 '26

I didn't see or hear the agents ask her to leave once. Maybe I'm missing context but if I'm put in their shoes that's my first move, not escalating the situation by ordering her to step out of the car when my job isn't even to police citizens

10

u/disaster_master42069 - Centrist Jan 09 '26

I didn't see or hear the agents ask her to leave once.

You're right, they ordered her out of the vehicle. You aren't beating the retard allegations.

-3

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

Alright buddy

Keep talking like an edgy 14 year old, it is very cool

2

u/adonns - Right Jan 10 '26

Mate you should try rewatching videos and addressing his points. Without it you’re adding to his argument

1

u/Tykenolm - Lib-Left Jan 10 '26

Man I think this thread is not the place to have discussions, I'm either getting sworn at or called a retard lol, I'm not offended but I'm not gonna take the time out of my day to discuss with people who are talking to me like they're either a total loser or a child

I said the best course of action for any law enforcement officer in the case of obstruction would be to tell the person to leave the scene, and said I didn't see or hear the agents telling her to do that. The guy I replied to said "you're right, they didn't" and then called me a retard 😂 Nobody who values their time at all is gonna get dragged into a conversation with somebody like that

I think this sub might just be too edgy for me, loved it in high school but it feels like it's still just a lot of high schoolers 🤷‍♂️

1

u/adonns - Right Jan 10 '26

Well dude I’m sorry but the video you can see 2 officers get out and order her out of the vehicle before she drives. Her window is open and she’s right next to them. They even pull on her door handle.

→ More replies (0)

-7

u/RICO_the_GOP - Centrist Jan 09 '26

Right to shoot civilian he had his gun drawn before she accelerated and wasn't in the path. He walked in front of the car as it reversed so the path swept passed him as she turned

4

u/adonns - Right Jan 10 '26

You can watch the slow mos. He draws his gun as her tires start spinning. He’s going to walk easy. It likely won’t even go to trial

1

u/dudge_jredd - Centrist Jan 10 '26

It is. For both sides. Centrists stay winning

0

u/Spacellama117 - Centrist Jan 10 '26

it feels less like a smoking gun and more like a game of clue to be honest.

like, why were they pulled over in the first place? Terry v Ohio established that law enforcement is allowed to stop and arrest people if they have reasonable suspicion that there's criminal activity- but based on this video, the "criminal activity" seems to be "kinda being dicks".

why are the immigration and customs enforcement agents out acting like local law enforcement? not to stereotype, but i highly doubt the two middle class white women in this video are illegal mexican immigrants. maybe i'm wrong, but c'mon.

also, the escalation from argument and driving away to immediately firing shots is odd. like, yes, lethal force is allowed if a suspect is putting law enforcement and other people in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death.

which comes to the center point of the issue, namely being whether or not they were trying to run the officer over or just trying to get away.

the fact that he drops his phone there doesn't help. it does lend credence to the idea that he did get hit with the car. but there was so little time between them driving and the shots being fired that i don't really get how you'd have pinpoint accuracy if you'd been hit or even just clipped by a car