pull down to refresh
We have video from multiple angles, witnesses not required, but even so this corroborates what we can see.
"ICE agent was infront of her car... his midriff was on her bumper"
What witness neglects to mention is he shot only after she accelerated. Only sane thing to do when surrounded by law with a gun in your face is to put your hands up... not punch the accelerator.
The ICE agents told her to leave and she tried to comply when they approached the car. She was not under arrest.
She tried to comply by punching the gas as an agent was in front of the car? After another agent walking up calmly told to get out of the car? Only after she tried to speed off did that other agent grab the door. She was being detained, and only at that point was the shooter in front of the car to stop her from evading after being told to exit the vehicle.
Spin it all you want, it's conclusive she resisted arrest and weaponized the vehicle.
deleted by author
reporting
LOL
You're really a dishonest turd. Your own linked video shows all of this.
You’re right on one point: the video does show them yelling “get out of the f— car.” I retract that bullet.
But that still doesn’t make your story “conclusive.” Even if she was protesting and obstructing, that might justify an order to move/exit or detention depending on the facts, but it doesn’t establish the order was lawful, or that the car was “weaponized,” or that she was under arrest, or that shots were justified after separation.
Obstruction ≠ weapon.
"Get out” ≠ “under arrest.”
And even with a valid basis to detain, deadly force still turns on imminent threat, especially once the vehicle is moving away.
So the remaining questions are simple:
what was the lawful basis?
was she actually detained/arrested (and for what)?
when did the threat stop being imminent relative to the shots fired?
ICE can't do routine traffic stops, which this wasn't, she was beyond a road block in an operational area.
Hitting an agent with a vehicle is weaponization
Twist in the wind some more comrade.
Since other agents/bystanders were in the area, and the vehicle was accelerating after being weaponized "being operated in a manner", it's justified by the book. Many such cases with regular police.
Her intent may have been to simply escape, but the circumstances around the incident will justify the use of force since, particularly where the FIRST shot was while she was hitting an agent. The 2nd and 3rd shots will surely be questioned, but we've seen this play out countless times in the officers favor.
She was in what you’re calling a “restricted/operational” area, fine. But then own the next part: agents approached her vehicle and immediately escalated to “get the f— out of the car.” That might be lawful if there’s a lawful basis for detention/arrest, but you haven’t shown that. Just asserting “restricted area” doesn’t automatically supply probable cause, and the burden isn’t on the public to assume every shouted command is justified.
Now on “weaponization”: yes, a vehicle can be weaponized. But “car touched an agent” ≠ automatically “deadly weapon, therefore justified.” The standard is imminent threat, shot by shot. If the first shot happened while an agent was pinned/in the direct path, that’s one analysis. But once there’s separation, when the car is moving away and the officer is upright/able to plant and fire, your “weaponized” label doesn’t carry forward unless you can show the vehicle still posed an imminent threat to someone else at that moment.
Post the timestamped video and point to the frames where (1) the lawful basis is clear and (2) the threat remains imminent for each shot. Otherwise “conclusive” is just a story you prefer.