The Shooting in Minneapolis Was Murder. A Lawyer Explains Why.
Within hours of a woman being shot dead by ICE agents in Minneapolis, officials rushed to frame the killing as “defensive” and even labeled it an act of “domestic terrorism.”
That language wasn’t reckless. It was strategic. It was deployed to lock in a narrative before the facts had oxygen.
But when you strip away the rhetoric and apply the actual legal standard governing deadly force, this shooting collapses.
Deadly force by federal law enforcement is not justified by fear, inconvenience, protest activity, bad weather, or after-the-fact storytelling. It is governed by three non-negotiable principles. On
every one of them, this killing raises red flags.
WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED:
A red Honda Pilot, driven by a 37-year-old woman, was idling in the roadway as a form of protest against ICE’s so-called “Metro Surge.” ICE agents in a white truck pulled up, exited their vehicle, and approached her car while shouting commands.
One agent reportedly grabbed the driver’s door handle and tried to yank it open. In response, the woman began to slowly back up. She then turned her wheel to the right, attempting to maneuver around the ICE vehicles and drive away.
As she accelerated, an officer moved toward the front driver’s side fender—placing himself in the vehicle’s path. He then reached across the hood and fired at least three shots through the windshield.
The woman was struck in the head.
Her vehicle rolled roughly 100 feet before crashing into a utility pole and a parked car.
That sequence matters. Legally. Critically.
Imminence: THE THREAT MUST BE IMMINENT:
Not speculative. Not “could have.” Right now.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that officers cannot justify deadly force if they had the ability to step aside, disengage, or de-escalate. The law does not reward officers for creating their own danger.
An officer stepping into the path of a moving vehicle does not magically transform that vehicle into an imminent lethal threat.
SEVERITY:
Deadly force is reserved for threats involving death or serious bodily injury. It is not justified for property damage. It is not justified for resistance. It is not justified for flight.
A vehicle becomes a deadly weapon only when death is unavoidable. Speed matters. Distance matters. Officer positioning matters. Time to reassess matters. Words like “ramming” and “terrorism” do not replace evidence.
REASONABLENESS:
This is the standard that destroys weak justifications.
The question is not what ICE claims afterward. It is whether another reasonable officer, in the same moment, would have believed lethal force was necessary.
Not convenient.
Not preferable.
Necessary.
If officers could move, wait, or disengage, the justification fails. If the moment was fluid rather than instantaneous, it fails. If the defense relies on labels instead of the exact second the trigger was pulled, it fails.
Calling this “domestic terrorism” changes nothing. Terrorism is a charging label. It is not a use-of-force standard.
WHAT THIS REALLY IS:
This looks like narrative control, not accountability.
Deadly force is the most extreme power the state has. If the threat wasn’t immediate, if the danger was avoidable, if a reasonable officer would have acted differently, then this wasn’t self-defense.
It was unlawful.