ICE Officer Kills Motorist In Minneapolis
- Thread starter Its On A Slab
- Start date
is as does
A man said his children were taken to the hospital after his vehicle was hit by a flashbang grenade during clashes between protesters and police in north Minneapolis. This came after the second shooting involving an ICE agent within a week.
A man said his children were taken to the hospital after his vehicle was hit by a flashbang grenade during clashes between protesters and police in north Minneapolis. This came after the second shooting involving an ICE agent within a week.
One somewhat blurred shot appeared to show that. Another clearer shot appeared to show him jumping back.
Our system of government there are federal powers (Art I, Section 8 of the Constitution), prohibited federal powers (Art. I, Section 9) and powers denied to the states (Art. I, Section 10).
There are federal powers, state powers and concurrent powers.
The federal government has the power over immigration.
One political party has decided that not enforcing immigration law is to its political advantage and that its members in public office will not assist and in extreme cases will actively oppose the enforcement of federal immigration law.
The problem is that the federal authority does not therefore go away. ICE's job of enforcing federal immigration law still exists, but, in order to do that legitimate federal function, they now have to engage in crowd control and traffic stops, tasks they were not designed, equipped, or trained to do. Local police should be doing that, but their elected public officers have told local police not to.
This injects risk and friction into the process of enforcing federal immigration law.
Agreed. Yet, I guess you can also agree that the Constitution doesn't say very much about allowing Federal LEO to shoot people at traffic stops simply because they don't comply.
Two problems with that analysis.
1. She was not shot for failing to comply. She was shot for hitting a federal law enforcement officer with her car.
2. Is it necessary and proper for Congress to authorize federal law enforcement to carry arms and use them to protect themselves when threatened? Probably necessary. Congress thought is proper. I suppose some of the states could take that judgment to court and argue that it is not proper for federal law enforcement officers to carry weapons or to use them to protect themselves. Not sure a federal court would agree with that, but maybe. I, for one, would love to have the necessary and proper clause construed that narrowly, because every federal action not specifically listed in the enumeration of federal powers in Art. I, Section 8 would be at least brought into question and maybe thrown out as unconstitutional.
You've got to absolutely STOP making sense. This board is not emotionally or intellectually ready for anything like that.
The LEO was in violation of his own orders for handling moving vehicles. Specifically, you don't put yourself in front of one. The video is very emphatic that she turned wheels to the right, moving at slow speed when he was allegedly "hit".
Failure to comply almost never gives the green light for use of deadly force. It is laughable to hear this talk about "weaponization" of the car. I tire of people making excuses for bad behavior.
He murdered this woman.
Here’s what’s publicly known about how ICE (and its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security) trains officers to handle situations involving vehicles — especially regarding not placing themselves in front of one:
Federal law-enforcement guidance that ICE incorporates (from DOJ and DHS policy) includes several core safety rules relevant to vehicle encounters:
Even though the full current ICE “Firearms and Use of Force Handbook” isn’t publicly posted in full, the DHS/DOJ policies that guide ICE’s training include the below key specific directives:
These aren’t just theoretical phrases — they reflect long-standing federal use-of-force standards that came up again after the recent ICE shooting in Minneapolis. Experts and critics noted that putting oneself in front of a vehicle runs counter to both federal policy and best law enforcement practices, and training de-emphasizes doing so because it creates unnecessary risk.
The topic has been under public scrutiny because:
While ICE’s internal manuals aren’t fully public, the relevant portions in the federal use-of-force and tactics guidance that ICE trains to include:
1.
General Use-of-Force & Vehicle-Safety Principles
Federal law-enforcement guidance that ICE incorporates (from DOJ and DHS policy) includes several core safety rules relevant to vehicle encounters:
- Agents should not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block it. That includes not standing directly in front of a vehicle that could move toward them.
- Officers must minimize unnecessary risk and avoid positions where they have “no alternative to using deadly force.”
- Approaching vehicles tactically: ICE training emphasizes approaching vehicles at a “tactical L” — at a 90-degree angle from the side — instead of from the front, so that an approaching vehicle doesn’t have a clear path toward an agent.
- Federal policies generally state firearms should not be fired at a moving vehicle to disable it or simply to prevent escape; deadly force is authorized only if there is a reasonable belief the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious injury.
2. What the Policies Mean in Practice
Even though the full current ICE “Firearms and Use of Force Handbook” isn’t publicly posted in full, the DHS/DOJ policies that guide ICE’s training include the below key specific directives:
- Avoid front and rear approach: “Agents/Officers should avoid standing directly in front of or behind a subject vehicle.”
- Avoid blocking movement with their bodies: Officers are explicitly discouraged from placing themselves in front of a vehicle’s projected path.
- Use deadly force only when necessary: Deadly force (including shooting at a vehicle’s occupants) is permitted only when there is a reasonable belief that someone is posing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury — not simply to stop or detain someone.
These aren’t just theoretical phrases — they reflect long-standing federal use-of-force standards that came up again after the recent ICE shooting in Minneapolis. Experts and critics noted that putting oneself in front of a vehicle runs counter to both federal policy and best law enforcement practices, and training de-emphasizes doing so because it creates unnecessary risk.
3. Context: Why It Matters Now
The topic has been under public scrutiny because:
- In the Minneapolis ICE shooting on January 7, 2026, bystander and official videos showed an ICE agent standing in front of a vehicle right before shots were fired. Critics — including local officials and use-of-force experts — said this contradicted basic law enforcement training about vehicles and risk avoidance.
- Federal policy does allow agents to use deadly force if someone is imminently threatening death or serious injury, but advocates say that being positioned in front of a vehicle — rather than beside it or behind cover — undermines the principles of minimizing risk.
While ICE’s internal manuals aren’t fully public, the relevant portions in the federal use-of-force and tactics guidance that ICE trains to include:
- Tactical vehicle approach doctrine: avoid front approaches; use side (tactical L) angles.
- Vehicle safety in use-of-force: don’t stand directly in the path of a subject vehicle.
- Deadly force limits: only when there’s an imminent threat of death/serious injury — not just to stop or detain someone or disable their vehicle.
This is the way MAGA operates. Dishonesty is used to justify their hatred.
That is the whole problem... If she was aiming for the officers at speed, opening fire would have been justified.
But there is simply no justification for lethal force in this setting when the ICE agents muffed the whole situation by not following any procedure and then shooting her two more times through the side door?
And yes... Before somebody points it out again, pulling out in front of them, particularly if doing so because she was trying to obstruct them and knew they were agents, was idiotic. Protesting is absolutely reasonably and justified, but should be done peacefully.
Her tires were spinning on ice when she started to move - had she been on dry pavement the officer would likely have been badly injured or killed. There's little chance he could see where the wheels were pointed and also little chance he was aware she was sitting on ice.
He shouldn't have been in front of the car.
She shouldn't have gunned it to try to run away, endangering the officer in the process.
From the killer's camera, it's clear that she was quickly turning the wheel to her right before her vehicle completely stopped moving in reverse. If he was watching her, he knew exactly what she was doing.
Okay?
Literally changes nothing I said - he was likely unable to see the direction the wheels were pointed when she hit the accelerator. And she still hit him.
Kind of funny that the conservatives and independents on this board see the errors of both people involved. Yet, most of the lefties are "all in" on Good being completely innocent and not someone who spent her significant free time looking for trouble. Unfortunately, she found it.
Lots of blame at the macro- and micro-levels to go around, including state and local governments not doing their jobs and leftists politicians encouraging their useful idiots to put themselves in harm’s way. Martyrs for the tribe, I guess.
It really is simple with law enforcement.
If they say stop, you stop.
If they say let me see your license, you show them your license.
If they want proof of insurance or registration, you show.
Just do what you are asked.
If they say stop, you stop.
If they say let me see your license, you show them your license.
If they want proof of insurance or registration, you show.
Just do what you are asked.
But, what if you're a narcissist with an extremely inflated sense of righteousness and loathing for America who is on the Soros or Chinese payroll? Can't support the team following your advice.
that still doesn’t make it ok for them to use lethal force
There was NO reason for that woman to be shot in the head at nearly point blank range through the side window of her car! No properly trained officer should have ever done it. No reasonable person would have done it under these conditions.
Trending content
Latest threads
-
ESPN: Northwestern stadium to debut Oct. 2 vs. Penn St.- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Inside James Franklin's rapid recruiting overhaul at Virginia Tech
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
ESPN: Vols QB Aguilar files suit seeking extra eligibility
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-
ESPN: Source: ESPN's No. 1 2027 RB Spell picks Georgia
- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0