DHS has a habit: when a use-of-force incident happens, the first public version arrives pre-labeled: "self-defense,” “fear for life,” “domestic terrorism.” That’s not evidence. That’s message discipline. (And it’s worth noticing how often the label arrives before the facts are actually tested.)
Here’s the Minneapolis case as described in the reporting: a maroon Honda Pilot is blocked on a residential street; agents approach; one tries to open the driver’s door; the vehicle reverses, then slowly moves forward and turns away. A third officer—positioned to the side—fires three shots, including shots after the vehicle has already passed him. The driver later crashes and dies.
DHS/Trump/Noem framed the same sequence as a “violent rioter” who “weaponized” the vehicle and tried to run over officers—“an act of domestic terrorism”—with the shooting cast as defensive.
This is where the template matters: define the label, then demand the criteria. For “vehicle-as-weapon / self-defense” to be accurate, you’d expect evidence of: (1) the shooter being in the vehicle’s path (or trapped), (2) no safe alternative, and (3) shots timed to an active threat, not after separation.
Now add what CBS Chicago just documented: Minneapolis echoes two Chicago-area incidents from “Operation Midway Blitz,” where DHS initially leaned on the same “car attack” narrative, and later video/case outcomes complicated it (Franklin Park; Brighton Park, where charges were dismissed with prejudice).
Concession (because reality is messy): yes, vehicles can be used as weapons. But that explains a slice, not the whole, because the real dispute is the gap between labels and mechanics.
If the goal is public safety, focus on verifiable mechanics + preserved evidence, not labels that function like a legal/PR shield.
Question: What’s your falsification test here? What specific bodycam/angle/evidence would change your mind either way?
Let's say I approach someone's car, armed and with my own people blocking their path. I try to open their door and they drive away. As they start driving away I shoot them.
Based on that sequence of events, most people would rightly say that I created a life-threatening situation and murdered someone who was acting in reasonable self-defense.
So, what I need to know is what granted the agent a legitimate right to create this situation. Clearly, most of us have no such right. Where did it come from?
The agent's badge and uniform should have told you to freeze and do nothing until ordered. If he was in civilian clothes with no clear identity, then you would be closer to self-defense...
When armed agents block your car, yank at your door, and don’t clearly state cause or give you a lawful order you can actually comply with, panic isn’t ‘terrorism'. It's human. And ‘badge’ doesn’t turn a created confrontation into a forever self-defense claim, especially if the shots come after the car is already moving away.
Look at the feet: shot #1 is fired by the forward agent, who’s offset to the driver-side/front quarter, not squarely in the vehicle’s path. That’s a geometry problem for the ‘I was about to be rammed’ story.
That's a practical argument not a moral one. Wearing a badge and uniform confers no special rights.
Then you apparently haven't read federal law very closely. To each their own.
Rights do not come from the government. Apparently you've never read any political philosophy. To each their own.
Tell me how that works out for you at your next traffic stop, lol. Try reading him Adam Smith or Descartes while you're at it...
Yeah, that's clearly what I meant
The ‘right’ is: stop first, escalate fast, claim ‘reasonable fear,’ and let qualified immunity + deference clean up the rest.
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html?smid=url-share
TL;DR:
The administration says the ICE agent fired “defensive shots” because Renee Good was about to run him over. But a multi-angle video analysis argues the opposite: the SUV appears to reverse and then turn away, while the shooter is off to the side (left of the vehicle), not in its path, and he keeps firing as the car passes.
After the SUV crashes into a parked car, the analysis says agents don’t immediately render aid, block bystanders (including a doctor) from helping, and some agents leave the scene, which the piece frames as potentially compromising/altering the crime scene.
Nothing says ‘order’ like closing schools.
https://www.404media.co/dhs-is-lying-to-you-about-ice-shooting-a-woman/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-federal-agent-involved-minneapolis-shooting-during-immigration-surge-city-2026-01-07/
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/minneapolis-ice-shooting-franklin-park-marimar-martinez-operation-midway-blitz/
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/police-records-witness-accounts-complicate-dhs-narrative-fatal-chicago-area-ice-2025-09-24/
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/federal-prosecutors-ask-court-drop-indictment-woman-shot-during-deportation-2025-11-20/
https://apnews.com/article/e58ca635feeb2ef8ddb0b4dea22e9726
https://news.wttw.com/2025/11/20/feds-dismiss-charges-against-woman-shot-border-patrol-agent-brighton-park
https://abc7chicago.com/post/franklin-park-ice-shooting-new-bodycam-video-captures-police-response-fatal-silverio-villegas-gonzalez/17872941/