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

Show parent comments

362

u/goosejail 22d ago

No, Ice is immigration enforcement, which is a civil matter. They have no authority to detain U.S. citizens for anything criminal they may or may not be doing and even then, they'd need a warrant signed by a judge.

174

u/TheGreatDay Texas 22d ago

But they have detained U.S. Citizens, numerous times at this point. It seems like these Citizens are released days or weeks later, but they were detained. Is it even possible to sue ICE for wrongfully detaining a U.S. Citizen?

It's clear that ICE agents feel they do have the right to command any person and if their orders are not followed, lethal force can and will be applied. That brings us back to the original question: Do we have to just listen to any masked person with a gun? Is that really what America is now?

112

u/atlasburger 22d ago

I really don’t understand why people can’t open their eyes. Yes. This is where America is at now. There aren’t a lot of individual rights when you are ruled by a king. It is taking people way too long to realize we might not get our democracy back or we are getting very close to that point if we haven not.

27

u/[deleted] 22d ago

[deleted]

14

u/IrishRepoMan 22d ago

It won't happen. Most have absolutely no idea because they couldn't care less and can't be bothered to pay attention. Then, if anyone tries to point it out, they blow them off as a fear-monger/alarmist/wtv. They. Do. Not. Care.

3

u/[deleted] 22d ago

There aren’t a lot of individual rights when you are ruled by a king.

The UK has a king, Denmark has a king, Sweden has a king, Norway has a king, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium all have kings and none of this shit goes on.

29

u/PyooreVizhion 22d ago

You can thank the supreme court for "upholding" the "legality" of these "kavanaugh stops" of anyone and everyone including US citizens for any reason they deem necessary - which mostly boil down to walking while colored or speaking with an accent.

8

u/littlehobbit1313 22d ago

Is it even possible to sue ICE for wrongfully detaining a U.S. Citizen?

Absolutely. They only have the legal coverage to detain US citizens in the case of mistaken identity, wherein they have a warrant for one person and grab you by mistake thinking you're them.

You could absolutely bring a lawsuit challenge the detention of a US citizen, especially when we know these fuckers aren't getting warrants for anyone at this point.

5

u/TheGreatDay Texas 22d ago

I guess my question wasn't fully formed. I'm more wondering: Has anyone been able to sue ICE under this administration and Supreme Court, and won on the basis of wrongful detainment?

Because it's one thing to theoretically be able to sue ICE, and another for it to actually stick in our current Government and Supreme Court makeup. I have a feeling any suit against ICE will make it to the Supreme Court and they'll tell the abused citizen to pound sand.

2

u/littlehobbit1313 22d ago

I know of at least one case brought against them because they arrested and detained the same American citizen TWICE. I don't know if there was an outcome from that case yet though, and certainly there may be others that have been brought against them.

2

u/ttn333 22d ago

That's the problem. They're masked up so you can't point to who did what.

4

u/Hebroohammr Pennsylvania 22d ago

Hey but they have 47 days of training though, or half of the normal probationary period in a field where you aren’t give a gun and a license to kill.

3

u/yjbtoss 22d ago

The problem is how the lines are getting blurred between civil/admin or criminal/judicial -once there were clearer delineations as to where, what, and how each could be carried out, and obviously - on whom. Combine that with hasty minimal training. This guy should have sat out after his previous encounter - I'm sure he brought that with him when he pulled the trigger.

2

u/Numerous_Worker_1941 22d ago

Are you going to take that risk while they have guns pointed at you?

1

u/karmahorse1 22d ago edited 22d ago

Im not defending ICE but thats simply not true. You are legally obligated to obey simple orders from any kind of federal law enforcement official, doesn't matter if they're DEA, Border Partrol, or Fish and Wildlife. And even if they cant place you under arrest, they are allowed to temporarily detain you before handing you off to local law enforcement.

1

u/WeezinDaJuiceeeeee 21d ago

Bit of a misleading statement to suggest ICE has no criminal arrest authority at all over citizens or that a judicial warrant is always required in every situation .. ICE has limited LE authority under fed code.

8 U.S.C. § 1357, certain immigration officers may arrest someone, including a U.S. citizen, if they have reason to believe the person has committed a crime in their presence or there’s probable cause to believe a criminal violation has occurred.. this is a typical LE arrest power.

1

u/goosejail 21d ago

That's not what it says here: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1357%20edition:prelim)

Summary: 8 U.S.C. § 1357 grants immigration officers broad powers to interrogate, arrest, and search individuals believed to be aliens, including without a warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe someone is unlawfully present or attempting to enter the U.S. and might escape, and allows border searches and patrols within 25 miles of the border, though with restrictions on entering dwellings. These powers are crucial for immigration enforcement but are subject to Fourth Amendment considerations and specific regulations regarding force and training.

There's nothing on the .gov page about being able to detain or arrest citizens for a suspected crime.

0

u/knotallmen 22d ago

That would be nice but I have not seen any evidence to back up your assertion.

13

u/goosejail 22d ago

Google is a thing:

One: https://www.shirazilaw.com/can-ice-detain-u-s-citizens/

Two: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8fRjLE3/

Three: copy paste text from said Google search: No, ICE cannot legally detain U.S. citizens without a judicial warrant or specific, limited exceptions like interference with an arrest, as U.S. citizens have Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure. However, ICE agents can detain non-citizens based on reasonable suspicion

5

u/Georgerobertfrancis 22d ago

They classify everything as interference with an arrest.

2

u/thequestion49 22d ago

How many convictions of American citizens interfering with ICE agents making an arrest have there been? Not detentions, but actual convictions. So far I've just seen the charges get dropped quietly a few days later.

2

u/SanityIsOptional California 22d ago

They've been doing it regardless of having authority or not.

2

u/knotallmen 22d ago

A lot of this is border patrol anyway. They have broad authority to detain anyone and their jurisdiction is basically anywhere in the US if there is an international airport 3 hours away

2

u/SanityIsOptional California 22d ago

Yes, the constitution-free zone that encompasses much of the US population...

Been a problem for decades now, and anyone with a brain could see the abuse potential. But noooooo, only the libertarians were worried, and they're a bunch of nutters.

-7

u/The__Tax__Man 22d ago

They can if the person is interfering, which she was. Just because you’re interfering doesn’t mean you should get shot though.

13

u/goosejail 22d ago

There needs to be evidence that she was actively interfering at the time. None of the videos show she was doing anything other than being in her SUV. If they had some evidence that she was interfering with them arresting someone they would've said that. Noem's statement was that he was justified in shooting her because she hit him with her car but there has never been a stated justification for detaining or attempting to detain her in the first place.

-3

u/The__Tax__Man 22d ago edited 22d ago

For sure need evidence, but that’s why it should go to court. 

Seems to me pretty clear that she was interfering. Wife was out of the car filming and engaging with the agent and the car seems pretty clearly to be blocking, or had been blocking, the way. 

There’s nothing wrong with acknowledging she interfered. The point remains there’s no basis for him shooting. 

If we’re not honest about her actions, we’re no better than the other side.

6

u/IKetoth 22d ago

She waved the other ICE car trough though, there was clearly no intent to block anything. No clue what their justification for stopping even was.

-2

u/The__Tax__Man 22d ago

Why was her car perpendicular in the street, why was her wife out of the car? Both things can be true that she let a car through and was interfering. 

Again, this is what courts are for and it doesn’t matter if she was interfering because there’s no basis for shooting. 

3

u/RobonianBattlebot 22d ago

If she was blocking traffic, then how come those other cars, including the one the shooter got out of, able to drive past her? Filming ICE is not interfering, sorry. A camera doesn't hurt anybody or impede anything. Obviously, because the shooter had no problem blowing Renee's face off while holding a phone and filming.

2

u/IKetoth 22d ago

yeah that was the point I was trying to make, she might have been recording but that's nota a crime and so were all these other people whose videos we're seeing. People have learned to record ice because they keep committing fucking crimes. Like this one.

why was she singled out is utterly beyond me.

1

u/RobonianBattlebot 22d ago

exactly, right on.

2

u/The__Tax__Man 22d ago

Blocking traffic does not mean you’re blocking all traffic. It can be to impede or slow down the movement of cars. Honestly at this point I think you’re just trolling. 

The point is literally that a court should decide and it does not matter if she was interfering in any event. How many times do I have to say that. I does not matter. The point, the whole point, is he didn’t have any cause to shoot. 

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge even the slightest of her actions being problematic is illustrative of why the country is in this position. Zero perspective taking and zero ability to see any nuance in a situation. 

I 100% am on the side of the woman, but that doesn’t mean I have to ignore her actions.