Part of the problem with our political climate is that each side feels the need to distort facts in service of their narrative. What happened is pretty clear and yet a minority of people are actually willing to discuss all facts rather than just those that service their party’s political ends. So I’ll lay it all out.
1. Woman and her partner intentionally obstructs ICE operation with her large vehicle, which is illegal.
2. Prior to the shooting, shooter ICE agent and woman’s partner are having a heated argument outside the vehicle with both pointing phone cameras at each other. It is clear tensions are high.
3. Additional ICE agents pull up in their truck, get out and order victim out of her vehicle. Presumably they are going to arrest her for obstructing operation. She does not comply.
4. Shooter ICE agent moves to front of vehicle to prevent woman from fleeing scene.
5. Woman refuses ICE orders. Instead she puts her vehicle in reverse. At this point shooter ICE agent draws his gun.
6. Woman puts her vehicle in drive and she turns wheel. The turning of wheel indicates she was trying to avoid hitting shooter ICE agent. She appears to be attempting to flee the scene, which is illegal, but does not appear to be intentionally trying to run over the shooter ICE agent contrary to the administration’s current narrative.
7. Car lurches forward, striking the officer who is now at the front corner of the vehicle. The initial widely circulated video of the incident does not clearly show the officer being struck. The angle of the video appears to show the officer just being grazed by the car. But a different video now widely circulating (that I’m sure most of you have seen but have conveniently ignored) clearly shows the officer being struck and being thrown back several feet and to the side by the impact.
8. While it’s likely the driver victim was not intending to run over the officer (see 6 above), her actions were reckless and could have resulted in serious injury or death of the ICE agent, particularly due to the icy conditions.
9. Upon being struck ICE agent immediately fires a bullet through the front windshield. Photos widely circulating (also ignored by this board’s posters) show the bullet hole in front windshield.
10. What the officer was thinking at the time of the first shot is pure speculation. I’m sure he will now claim he feared for his life. My guess is he was also loaded with adrenaline and anger from his previous confrontation with the driver’s partner and events that preceded the videos we have all seen. I also think it’s likely he was angry the driver was not complying with orders. But the fact that he was struck by the vehicle makes a prosecution for this first shot unlikely imo because there is no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not fear for his life after being struck by a multi-ton vehicle.
11. The ICE agent manages to keep his balance after being struck and is now at the front side of the vehicle. At this point he fires two additional shots through the side window. At the point of these shots it is much less clear that he could have reasonably feared for his life. I believe an investigation for potential prosecution is warranted for these shots. However, it must be taken into account that these shots occurred in the same second or two as the first shot. Can law enforcement be expected to make rational decisions in such a short time frame after being struck by a vehicle? This issue must be considered and there may be law on the books regarding the leeway law enforcement is given in such situations.
12. While he may not have committed a prosecutable crime, it seems pretty clear the officer could have avoided shooting if he was thinking with a clear head. It’s also not clear to me why he stood in front of vehicle and pulled his gun. The other agents did not pull their guns. Proper procedure to me in these instances should be to avoid escalation. If she flees the scene then follow her or get her license plate and arrest her later. The counter argument would be that a subsequent chase could endanger additional lives and she was breaking the law.
In any case in a properly functioning society, this event would be discussed with consideration of all the above listed facts. But that is not what I’m seeing on this board or anywhere else. Instead, as has been the practice for the past decade, the dueling camps are shouting past each other, willfully cherry picking facts. It’s a pointless exercise.