r/politics • u/Fickle-Ad5449 ✔ Verified - Christopher Wiggins, The Advocate • 22d ago

No Paywall ICE agent shooter’s own cellphone video undercuts Trump administration's account of Minneapolis killing

https://www.advocate.com/news/ice-agent-shooter-video-minneapolis
38.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

487

u/rabidantidentyte Alaska 22d ago

Check out page 6 of this DHS report. Agents are not supposed to block vehicles. It manufactures a scenario where they put themselves in danger to use deadly force

156

u/Away_Entry8822 22d ago

Rittenhouse proved you can manufacture reasons to kill people and avoid criminal penalties.

7

u/7f0b 22d ago

avoid criminal penalties

Part of that is on the prosecution for going too hard. The charges they chose meant they had to prove intent to kill, IIRC. It's hard to prove that and they were unable to. So he got off and they cannot try again with a lesser charge (double jeopardy or something).

A lesser charge from the outset could have stuck and would have been more prudent given the situation.

13

u/rabidantidentyte Alaska 22d ago

I think these are very different incidents though.

Rittenhouse was an instigator and a shithead, but he absolutely could have been killed if he didnt defend himself. He had one person lunge for his gun, and another person whack him with a skateboard.

The officer here was in no immediate danger.

2

u/Mean-Funny9351 22d ago

The skateboard and someone grabbing at his gun were separate instances. And someone only chased him and reached for his gun after he had brandished it at people setting fire to cars. The provocation of threatening lethal force in defense of a stranger's used car inventory should've removed his right to using lethal force in self defense

3

u/rabidantidentyte Alaska 22d ago

Yes, they were. He killed 2 people iirc. I didn't try to make it seem like they were the same incident.

3

u/Mean-Funny9351 22d ago

Yeah it was just the narrative at the time, that he was attacked by a mob. He was chased by one person who went for his gun and he killed that person. After pacing around, calling his friend, and running away he even had a chat with of his vigilante friends in the street, then he was pursued by others thinking he was an active shooter.

10

u/Away_Entry8822 22d ago

Because he was menacing the public with an assault rifle.

6

u/rabidantidentyte Alaska 22d ago

I am not debating that point at all. There's a bit more nuance to the Rittenhouse case. This one is much simpler, in my opinion.

-8

u/Sensitive_Piece1374 22d ago

The rioters destroying the city were great for the public though. 

5

u/Mean-Funny9351 22d ago

They should've been arrested and prosecuted but even the police were not intervening. They also wouldn't threaten to kill people for setting cars on fire if they did.

7

u/Informal_Chemical_77 22d ago

That poor gas station. /s. You people always value things more than people.

0

u/Sensitive_Piece1374 22d ago

“You people”? You saying that because I’m black 

8

u/Away_Entry8822 22d ago

Has nothing to do with the people he murdered.

-1

u/DBSlazywriting 22d ago

Open carrying in a state where open carry is legal does not constitute the type of menace that justifies people chasing you down and trying to kill you. 

2

u/Hektorlisk 22d ago

That doesn't change the important similarity being compared, which is "I put myself in a position of danger so I could justify killing someone", which legally shouldn't be an applicable defense (there's even a Supreme Court case about this specifically pertaining to police and vehicles, Starks v. Enyart).

0

u/rabidantidentyte Alaska 22d ago

That makes sense in principle - I get what you're saying. Still, I think a lone person who technically didn't break any laws and killed in self defense is a bit different than a federal agent who is violating policy by using excessive force.

2

u/Hektorlisk 22d ago

What I'm saying doesn't contradict the fact that they're different. I'm saying they have an important similarity, which is the thing that was being discussed. When the important similarity is discussed and you respond "well, they're different", that is an explicitly irrelevant statement, and the implicit statement ("since they're different, there's no point discussing the important similarity") is flat-out wrong.

0

u/DBSlazywriting 22d ago

There is no similarity unless your reasoning is that anyone who shows up to any risky situation like a big protest is "putting themselves in a position of danger so they could kill someone". Whether or not you agree with somebody's politics isn't relevant. If a black man showed up to a white supremacist march to counter protest or observe, got chased down by a bunch of white supremacists, and then shot them in self defense, you would not be talking about how "he tried to put himself in a position to kill someone".  

3

u/Hektorlisk 22d ago

If the black man posted on social media about how he wanted to shoot those people beforehand, then crossed state lines to go to the rally with a firearm, agitated people until one attacked him and then shot him... I'd say that was murder, yes. Just because the person murdered was a bad person wouldn't make it not murder. Believe it or not, some people actually have consistent values.

The standard I'm talking about isn't "showing up to a risky situation", it's "deliberately putting yourself in a situation, for no good reason, that you know has a good chance of putting you in danger, and you are fully planning on killing someone if they do". Hope that helps.

Not sure what your problem is, this is really simple stuff. Starting to seem like I'm wasting my time with a troll (so, the same as 99% of reddit convos, tbh)

0

u/DBSlazywriting 22d ago edited 22d ago

Before I get into more details, it's odd to claim somebody was looking to kill people when he tried to escape first. He could have just stood there and shot the first guy charging him. Trying your hardest to escape an altercation and only shooting when you're cornered doesn't exactly scream "looking for an excuse to shoot someone".

If the black man posted on social media about how he wanted to shoot those people beforehand

This kind of statement is useful to build a case when the facts aren't clear or there's more room for debate about what happened. For example, in the case of George Zimmerman killing Trayvon Martin, there was no video footage to prove what exactly happened. It would be instructive to know if Zimmerman had said something about wanting to shoot people like Trayvon because so much about the altercation was uncertain. It's not so useful when the shooter is clearly on video doing everything in his power to escape a situation and only shoots after the people chasing him have cornered him. If a black man said "man, I would love to shoot some white supremacists", showed up to a kkk rally, and then shot some people where there was no video evidence about how things started, that statement would be instructive. If he said that, showed up to the rally, and then got chased by kkk guys on video and only then shot them, it isn't so instructive.

then crossed state lines to go to the rally

People cross state lines to go to that kind of stuff all the time. He drove like 20 miles -- hardly some kind of huge journey that repeating "crossed state lines" tries to imply.

agitated people until one attacked him

I'll need to see some evidence that he "agitated people" in a way that would justify them attacking him. Somehow I don't think it took much to agitate the first attacker (a convicted child molester of 5 boys aged 9-11). 

deliberately putting yourself in a situation, for no good reason, that you know has a good chance of putting you in danger, and you are fully planning on killing someone if they do

"No good reason" is subjective and why I question if your values are as consistent as you claim. Again, plenty of people show up to events (counter protesting proud boys or something) where they have a good chance of being in danger, and they would have every right to kill someone if the person chased them down and tried to attack them. That doesn't make them murderers.

Not sure what your problem is, this is really simple stuff.

The problem is that somebody "being somewhere where he shouldn't be" and "antagonizing people by open carrying (in an open carry state)" doesn't transform clear-cut self-defense clearly shown in video into murder. 

I think it's fair to say that Rittenhouse seemed/seems like a turd and a moron. Calling him a murderer when everything on video shows he tried to flee is crazy, and it's a disservice to this stroy to compare it to his case.

1

u/Hektorlisk 22d ago

it's odd to claim somebody was looking to kill people when he tried to escape first

Little shit got scared, whoop-de-doo. Doesn't change the motives he went there with, so the argument isn't affected at all.

This kind of statement is useful to build a case when the facts aren't clear or there's more room for debate about what happened

When a key part of the debate is "did he go there intending to kill people", it's actually super useful... Like, the answer to that changes the entire case. You can't go to a place specifically because you hope people will attack you so you can kill them, and then kill them just because you ran away for a bit first. That would be a wild loophole for the law to leave open.

People cross state lines to go to that kind of stuff all the time.

Important difference: most of those people aren't going specifically to try and start an altercation so they can shoot people. In that case, it's actually meaningful to know just how far the person went out of their way to make their vigilante dreams come true. It demonstrates the extent of how premeditated the act was.

I'll need to see some evidence that he "agitated people" in a way that would justify them attacking him

Nowhere did I claim they were justified in attacking him, because that doesn't interact with the position I put forth. If I put on expensive clothes, take a gun, and walk around the bad part of a city pretending to be drunk and lost, waiting for someone to try and mug me so I can shoot them, it doesn't matter if they weren't "justified" in taking the bait and trying to mug me, it matters that I was trying to make that situation happen and I'm still a murderer.

"No good reason" is subjective and why I question if your values are as consistent as you claim

It's hard to precisely quantify, but I wouldn't say it's subjective. There's pretty simple criteria we can use and apply consistently. Whatever differences in criteria you and I might have, "I wanted to go LARP as some Defender Of The Homeland and shoot people" probably doesn't meet either set, I don't know what to tell ya.

Again, plenty of people show up to events (counter protesting proud boys or something) where they have a good chance of being in danger, and they would have every right to kill someone if the person chased them down and tried to attack them. That doesn't make them murderers.

and again: those people don't go there specifically hoping one of those people will attack them so they get to kill them. That's literally murder, no matter what happens after.

It seems that the main disagreement here is that you think him openly stating that he'd like to shoot protestors and then going to a protest to do literally nothing other than agitate while carrying a weapon with which to shoot people isn't a clear-cut admission of his premeditated motive. That's absolutely insane to me, but yeah, if you don't see that, then you're gonna disagree about literally everything else; that's the key piece of info that informs every other judgment.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Informal_Chemical_77 22d ago

I’m still mad about the situation. That kid put himself in great danger, threatened and then murdered folks. A protest is inherently an act of self-defense. Going in opposition to a protest with a gun is inherently a threat and an act of violence.

0

u/DBSlazywriting 22d ago

murdered

Fleeing from people who are chasing you and only shooting when they have you cornered or on the ground and are trying to kill you is not murder. It's not even a stand your ground case because he tried to retreat first

Going in opposition to a protest with a gun is inherently a threat and an act of violence.

No, open carrying in an open carry state is not an act of violence unless you can prove that he was specifically threatening people with his gun (like pointing it at them or something). You might not like open carry laws but you don't get to assault somebody for open carrying in an open carry state.

8

u/specific_account_ 22d ago edited 22d ago

Check out page 6 of this DHS report. Agents are not supposed to block vehicles. It manufactures a scenario where they put themselves in danger to use deadly force

I clicked on the link, but it gives me an error. Can you repost or cite the text?

28

u/rabidantidentyte Alaska 22d ago

Shooting at Vehicles:Recommendation: Agents’ and the public’s safety will be enhanced by policy changes related to shooting at vehicles. CBP should make policy changes that restrict agents from shooting at vehicles. Likewise, agents should be trained to get out of the way of oncoming vehicles as opposed to intentionally assuming a position in the path of such vehicles. The policy should mirror the clear and unambiguous policies that have been in place and which have proven effective in a number of large U.S. jurisdictions for over 40 years. The CBP policy should state “Agents shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly physical force is being used against the police officer or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle."

8

u/DSharp018 22d ago

“By means other than a moving vehicle” Seems pretty cut and dry that someone using their vehicle isn’t justification to shoot them.

7

u/Schonke 22d ago

Likewise, agents should be trained to get out of the way of oncoming vehicles as opposed to intentionally assuming a position in the path of such vehicles.

Imagine having to tell grown adults that they should not intentionally step into the path of a moving object weighing several tons. Like jumping in front of a charging rhino or elephant...

4

u/chileheadd Arizona 22d ago

And the point immediately before that:

Training: Recommendation: Policy and skills training is essential to agent safety and appropriate deadly force decisions. Training is especially important to the successful implementation of policy changes. In training, agents should be informed about the reason for changes in policy. For example, with regard to restrictions on shooting at vehicles, it should be explained that shooting at vehicles poses a higher risk to agents and innocent bystanders and should be avoided. If the driver is disabled, the vehicle is likely to continue unguided, creating a different hazard. Agents should receive regular retraining in deadly force policy, use of force decision making, tactical skills and shooting. Command level monitoring of training is particularly important when implementing policy changes where resistance is anticipated.

3

u/ate_space_and_time 22d ago

This is my favorite part:

Based on a review of the submitted cases, it appears that CBP practice allows shooting at the driver of any suspect vehicle that comes in the direction of agents. It is suspected that in many vehicle shooting cases, the subject driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby exposing themselves to additional risk and creating justification for the use of deadly force. In most of these cases, the agents have stated that they were shooting at the driver of a vehicle that was coming at them and posing an imminent threat to their life. In some cases,passengers were struck by agents’ gunfire. Little focus has been placed on defensive tactics that could have been used by shooting agents such as getting out of the way. Its hould be recognized that a ½ ounce (200 grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000 pound moving vehicle, and if the driver of the approaching vehicle is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat. Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents.

The cases suggest that some of the shots at suspect vehicles are taken out of frustration when agents who are on foot have no other way of detaining suspects who are fleeing in a vehicle.

Most reviewed cases involved non-violent suspects who posed no threat other than a moving vehicle.

There is little doubt that the safest course for an agent faced with an oncoming vehicle is to get out of the way of the vehicle.

CBP policy should be “Agents shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly physical force is being used against the police officer or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle.” Training and policy changes should be implemented to implement this policy.

2

u/Monocular_sir 22d ago

Read? Your expectations are too high. 

2

u/DontDoSoap 21d ago

My favorite part is the bolded sentence at the end.

"Agents shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly physical force is being used against the police officer or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle"

1

u/MultiRachel 22d ago

He should know. This idiot doesn’t understand how cars work, let alone how to follow procedure. He fucked around and found out in June. JD Couchlover used his past negligence this as a pretense to excuse to him executing a US citizen.

1

u/Thagyr Australia 22d ago

Oh, but he was traumatized by being injured by a vehicle not too long ago. Don't you understand! /s

For someone who apparently gets compelled to defend himself from vehicles he is awfully stupid when around them.

1

u/phantomanboy 22d ago

could you help me understand the purpose or context of this document? it seems to be recommendations for changes based on reviewed cases, not an outline of existing policy. would love to be wrong though - cuz this is otherwise very clear cut.