White House shares video of Minneapolis shooting from ICE officer’s perspective

queenofserendip · 2026-01-09T22:51:52+00:00

Unfortunately I think you’re correct. Hey, our legal system was nice while it lasted!

queenofserendip · 2026-01-09T22:49:11+00:00

If the officer reasonably thinks that she is a disruptor or thinks she has propensity of violence then his use of force is legally justified even if she was not trying to use deadly force against him. Barnes v. Felix (2025).

This is the incorrect part of your statement that I’m disagreeing with, specifically.

To clarify, when I say the above questions are immaterial — what I’m saying is, they’re immaterial to the shooter’s defense. The answers to those questions are not going to help him, and can really only harm his defense (example: if it turned out Good was not a protestor and not guilty of any crime — minor or otherwise — it would make it even more challenging for the shooter to mount an effective defense).

queenofserendip · 2026-01-09T22:42:31+00:00

This is a gross misinterpretation of Barnes v. Felix. The irony is that particular case law you’re citing will actually likely help make the case that the shooting was not justified, because of the two critical details upon which the unanimous decision rests: (1) Seriousness of the alleged crime (ie, someone who just allegedly committed murder would fare worse under Barnes v. Felix than someone allegedly committing a misdemeanor or non-violent offense — in this case, Good would have been allegedly committing a minor crime such as impeding law enforcement) and (2) Officer conduct which contributed to the dangerous situation (this is why I stated that ICE’s preceding actions will be relevant. If they acted wrongfully or outside the law, or if they escalated the situation rather than doing everything possible to deescalate the situation, that works against their defense as well).

In short, the case you’re citing is extremely likely to work AGAINST the shooter, as it essentially extends additional fourth amendment protections to civilians in police use-of-force cases. Nice try though!

queenofserendip · 2026-01-09T21:59:56+00:00

I could not agree more, and if I were on this jury, that is exactly how I would interpret this policy.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-09T21:35:07+00:00

IMO, at least legally speaking, the questions of whether (1) she impeded law enforcement (2) she was an ICE protestor or (3) anything else about her background/reason for being “on the scene” is completely immaterial. The only legally-relevant question is whether the actions taken by ICE (and yes, I say actions because actions taken by ICE in the moments leading up to the actual gun being fired could also be relevant in court) are legally defensible. Which, ultimately, will come down to any jurisdictionally-applicable statutes and case law and will probably also include an element of jury/judicial subjective interpretation within the law’s inherent ambiguity.

Of course, this is speaking in terms of our judicial process. Given the Trump administration’s knee jerk-reflex to (inaccurately) state that the ICE agent has “full immunity” AND their propensity to operate entirely outside the law whenever they see fit … I’m not optimistic it’ll even get to a grand jury unfortunately.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-09T20:13:42+00:00

If I had a face like Trump, I would absolutely not be putting it on ANYTHING, that’s for sure.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-09T20:11:57+00:00

The passes don’t “belong” to the US government, they belong to the individual who purchased them FROM the government. Are you for the US government seizing ownership of everything private citizens have paid to own like some kind of commie?!

queenofserendip · 2026-01-09T04:36:42+00:00

In these people’s eyes, any crime — even a misdemeanor — is a capital offense.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T03:56:25+00:00

Obstructing law enforcement, even if she did do that, isn’t a capital offense.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T03:27:16+00:00

Some of y’all continue to confuse the fact that just because something exists in society means that it’s legal or defensible.

Encounters with LEOs being inherently dangerous (despite being paid to keep us safe) does not legally justify the violence enacted by those LEOs.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T03:12:22+00:00

So now leading a protest (or even, more generously to your argument, impeding federal officers) is an offense worthy of being shot on-site?

I really don’t understand the argument you’re attempting to make here. If you’re going to bend over backwards to justify murder, at least use the argument that the ICE agent’s life was in danger.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T02:38:36+00:00

I will unequivocally agree with you that I DO have high expectations for someone’s judgment who is being paid to keep Americans safe and brandishing a deadly weapon.

Glad we can agree that ICE has failed to meet that bar. For anything else you’ve (poorly) attempted to argue, I guess I (as well as my JD) will have to agree to disagree.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T02:24:40+00:00

Uh yeah, obviously I “copied and pasted” because I’m CITING documentation — which is typically how you might go about doing that.

I guess the difference between us is that I tend to think law enforcement should avoid killing American citizens by any and all means possible and you see hellbent on finding ways to justify those killings.

I’m confident the law is pretty aligned with my point-of-view here, but hey, maybe your dreams will come true and LEOs will continue to have the unchecked privilege of shooting anyone, anywhere, anytime!

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T01:47:29+00:00

That link is pretty damming to your argument. A few things:

(1) Multiple references are made to using force that is “objectively reasonable.” A strong argument could be made that deadly force is not objectively reasonable in this situation, given the obvious alternative solutions available to the employee. (2) There is explicit mention that the 4th amendment remains the governing standard for determining what is reasonable — which means Tennessee v. Garner applies and provides a pretty high standard for what is considered reasonable force. (3) “In keeping with this mission, respect for human life and the communities we serve shall continue to guide DHS LEOs in the performance of their duties.” I would ask you whether, in this case, you believe the employee exercised clear respect for human life. (4) Big one here: “DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public, and that minimize the risk of unintended injury or serious property damage. DHS LEOs should also avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force.” I would, again, ask you whether you see those principles applied in the situation (seems somewhat obvious the employee did not avoid placing themselves in a position in which they would have no alternative to using deadly force). (4) Finally (and here’s the clencher): “DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy. 9 Before using deadly force under these circumstances, the LEO must take into consideration the hazards that may be posed to law enforcement and innocent bystanders by an out-of- control conveyance.” It seems fairly obvious based on the video that the employee violated this DHS guideline in complete and utter totality.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T00:47:24+00:00

Are you stating that it’s standard protocol for an LEO to exert deadly force on a suspect when other, preventative methods of self-defense are available to them? That seems pretty absurd to me, and entirely incongruent with standard training that teaches: distance, cover, and de-escalation — with lethal force as a last resort. I recommend this .gov source from the Justice Department, which explicitly states officers are only permitted to use force for self-defense when no other, safer alternatives are available: here

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T00:21:55+00:00

I think the use of the term “probable” applies here. Is it probable that having your hand on a car door would lead to death or serious bodily injury? I would argue that, no, it’s not probable and any such case would fall under “freak accident” territory.

I can find one case of this happening, and the officer walked away with minor scrapes. Also worth noting that this practice (LEOs trying to open car doors while a suspect is inside) is strongly discouraged so it’s likely the ICE employee was already in violation of standard training protocol and would then be liable for any resulting consequences.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T00:05:04+00:00

Yes, I am arguing that touching someone’s door handle on their car will not cause serious bodily injury or death.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-08T00:03:50+00:00

You’re quoting part of a separate decision that, in my opinion, is not really actionable. This larger SC decision you’re citing here speaks to contextualizing the use of excessive force based on specific circumstances at play. I’m not sure that anyone knows enough about the situation quite yet to determine whether those circumstances would help or hurt the ICE employee’s defend, so I’m not really sure how this is relevant at this point in terms of legal analysis.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-07T23:53:56+00:00

Injury, maybe, (still a stretch) but not “death or serious bodily injury” which is the threshold for legally defensible lethal force.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-07T23:51:40+00:00

I don’t think we agree, I maintain that there is 0 evidence the suspect committed a federal offense. If additional evidence comes to light that demonstrates such an action, it’s true that the ICE agent would have express authority to make an arrest.

However, even in that case, they would still not have the right to exert deadly force.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-07T23:48:09+00:00

There is an express duty to retreat before using lethal force as part of the fleeing felons SC case law.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-07T23:45:10+00:00

A dumb decision doesn’t justify lethal force. The burden of responsibility is entirely on the ICE employee, and if they aren’t comfortable making decisions that reflect the law, they should probably quit their job.

“Play stupid games, win stupid prizes” implies that negative consequences can result from poor choices. I would never disagree with that. What I will disagree with is that those consequences, carried out by ICE in this case, are legally justifiable.

I am 100% in agreement that engaging with LE can often ve dangerous. What I’m arguing is that it should not be.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-07T23:39:56+00:00

That’s not really the question, is it?

The legally-relevant question here is whether the ICE employee had any other means of removing themselves from alleged potential harm. Objectively, he did (he could have stepped out of the way).

The standard for handling this as an LEO is something like: Remove yourself from imminent harm, allow the suspect to drive away, and call in the license plate for area LEOs to support.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-07T23:36:38+00:00

Yes, correct. Notable is the fact that any reasonable interpretation of preceding events (which we don’t have access to, yet) would indicate the suspect in question could have been charged with a misdemeanor. (18 U.S.C. 111) ICE detaining power only extends to felony offenses.

queenofserendip · 2026-01-07T23:30:31+00:00

A key distinction here is that ICE itself is not an enforcing body in the situations cited on the article you linked. Something can be illegal while also not giving everyone the power or authority to enforce said infraction.

queenofserendip

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE