On New Year’s Eve in Northridge, Keith “Pooter” Porter Jr. was killed by an off-duty ICE officer who lived in the same apartment complex. Within a day, DHS framed it as an “active shooter” incident and praised the agent as “brave.” Meanwhile, Porter’s family and neighbors say he was firing celebratory shots (reckless and illegal, yes, but not uncommon where I am from), not attacking anyone, and they’re demanding transparency and charges.

Here’s the narrow claim I think is testable:

I’m not claiming “ICE is always lying” or that Porter was blameless. I’m saying this is what modern accountability failure looks like when the shooter is a federal officer: message discipline arrives fast; evidence arrives slow.

The machinery is simple:The machinery is simple:

• No bodycam + no usable complex video → public can’t evaluate the moment that matters (who fired first, whether he identified himself)
• Federal status + anonymity → the shooter can’t be compelled the way local cops can, and the name can stay withheld longer
• “Active shooter” label inflation → turns “reckless gunfire” into “imminent massacre,” pre-loading the moral verdict before the receipts
• Timeline drift (months/years) → justice becomes a slow administrative weather system, not a clear public standard

Concession: celebratory gunfire can kill. If Porter truly pointed a rifle and fired at the officer, deadly force may be legally justified. DHS claims he did; the family’s attorney disputes an “exchange of gunfire.” That’s exactly why we need the hard evidence.

What would change my mind: publicly released ballistics, 911/CAD, and any credible video/audio showing (1) clear identification, (2) commands, (3) Porter aiming/firing at the officer.

If the goal is public safety, what standard do you want: “hero narrative first” or evidence first, every time, for everyone?

Sources:Sources:

1. ABC7 – initial report + DHS framing; “off-duty ICE officer” / “active shooter” narrative
2. NBC Los Angeles – DHS statement details; claims about identification, rifle, and “exchange of gunfire”
3. Los Angeles Times – “Active shooter” vs “victim?”; explains why clarity may take time
4. Capital & Main – “Why no charges?”; family/attorney argument, jurisdiction and accountability questions
5. CBS Los Angeles – vigil coverage; community reaction and quotes
6. ABC7 – vigil + family demands for identification/charges
7. FindLaw – CA Gov Code § 7286 (state standards/constraints relevant to law enforcement use of force policy context)