Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

I put together this analysis. This constitutes homicide. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Two facts are dispositive. First, the driver placed the vehicle in reverse to increase distance between herself and the agent positioned in front of the car. That action is inconsistent with an intent to strike or... run over the agent. If the objective were to cause harm, reversing would have been unnecessary and counterproductive. Second, the driver turned the steering wheel to the right, away from the agent. At that point, the agent moved to the left side of the vehicle and was no longer in the vehicle’s path. The threat had dissipated. The agent then leaned over the hood, aimed, and fired. The use of deadly force was not reactive to an imminent threat. It was a discretionary act taken after the threat had ceased. This was not a justified shooting. It was an unlawful killing.show more

Agent Self FBI

81,605 subscribers

1,828,666 views • 8 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

A woman was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis during a federal enforcement operation, with sharply conflicting accounts emerging. DHS and the White House say the agent fired defensive shots after the woman attempted to use her car as a weapon while officers were blocked in snow. Minnesota officials say video footage shows the agent had room to move clear, was not struck by the vehicle as it drove off, and that the woman was not a target of immigration enforcement. The state says she was alone in the car and that a full investigation is under way to determine whether the use of lethal force was justified. Videos circulating on social media and broadcast by local media appear to show ICE agents arriving in a silver truck, ordering the woman to exit her vehicle and one agent tugging at the driver’s door. Footage shows shots fired within seconds as the vehicle begins to move away, before crashing into a parked car. The agent appears able to move clear and is not seen being struck by the vehicle. #Minneapolis

A woman was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis during a federal enforcement operation, with sharply conflicting accounts emerging. DHS and the White House say the agent fired defensive shots after the woman attempted to use her car as a weapon while officers were blocked in snow. Minnesota officials say video footage shows the agent had room to move clear, was not struck by the vehicle as it drove off, and that the woman was not a target of immigration enforcement. The state says she was alone in the car and that a full investigation is under way to determine whether the use of lethal force was justified. Videos circulating on social media and broadcast by local media appear to show ICE agents arriving in a silver truck, ordering the woman to exit her vehicle and one agent tugging at the driver’s door. Footage shows shots fired within seconds as the vehicle begins to move away, before crashing into a parked car. The agent appears able to move clear and is not seen being struck by the vehicle. #Minneapolis

BPI News

129,956 views • 8 months ago

🚨BREAKING: A new video shows DHS lied, again, about an ICE shooting. Yesterday, ICE reportedly told police that a man “weaponized” his vehicle by “ramming” into an ICE sedan, forcing an agent to fire his gun during an operation in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Except… that’s not what the video shows. In the video, an ICE agent rushes the driver’s window with his gun drawn. The agent recklessly waves his gun around, and appears to order the driver to roll down the window. That’s an extreme use of force from the very beginning. Another agent approaches the car, and moments later, they violently smash the driver’s window. And notice how the driver doesn’t try to flee until ICE violently escalates everything. He drives around the ICE vehicle, makes it into the street… not hitting a single ICE agent, or vehicle. Then, AFTER the car is already past every agent, and driving away, an ICE agent opens fire. The law is pretty clear… officers may only use deadly force, against a fleeing person, if they have probable cause to believe that person poses an immediate threat of death, or serious physical injury to the officer, or others. So, where was the immediate threat? The car had already passed the agents… and was driving AWAY. ICE also claimed Lara-Hernandez had a criminal history of assault, and that this was a targeted enforcement operation. Yet, publicly available court records reportedly do not show any active warrants. Federal agents don’t get to point guns at people without legal justification. They don’t get to fire at a vehicle after the immediate threat has passed. And they don’t get to lie to police about what happened. So, when are we going to start holding these agents accountable?

🚨BREAKING: A new video shows DHS lied, again, about an ICE shooting. Yesterday, ICE reportedly told police that a man “weaponized” his vehicle by “ramming” into an ICE sedan, forcing an agent to fire his gun during an operation in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Except… that’s not what the video shows. In the video, an ICE agent rushes the driver’s window with his gun drawn. The agent recklessly waves his gun around, and appears to order the driver to roll down the window. That’s an extreme use of force from the very beginning. Another agent approaches the car, and moments later, they violently smash the driver’s window. And notice how the driver doesn’t try to flee until ICE violently escalates everything. He drives around the ICE vehicle, makes it into the street… not hitting a single ICE agent, or vehicle. Then, AFTER the car is already past every agent, and driving away, an ICE agent opens fire. The law is pretty clear… officers may only use deadly force, against a fleeing person, if they have probable cause to believe that person poses an immediate threat of death, or serious physical injury to the officer, or others. So, where was the immediate threat? The car had already passed the agents… and was driving AWAY. ICE also claimed Lara-Hernandez had a criminal history of assault, and that this was a targeted enforcement operation. Yet, publicly available court records reportedly do not show any active warrants. Federal agents don’t get to point guns at people without legal justification. They don’t get to fire at a vehicle after the immediate threat has passed. And they don’t get to lie to police about what happened. So, when are we going to start holding these agents accountable?

Jesus Freakin Congress

688,846 views • 2 months ago

🚨BREAKING: Newly released ICE agent camera footage directly contradicts the claim that Renee Nicole Good tried to hit an agent with her vehicle. From the agent’s own angle, it’s clear Renee Nicole Good never posed a threat. In the synchronized footage, you can see her wife attempting to get into the car. They are preparing to leave. Suddenly, multiple ICE agents rush the vehicle. One agent moves toward the driver’s door and attempts to open it, trying to pull her out. Renee backs up. She then clearly turns the wheel AWAY from the agent. The agent has an unobstructed view of the steering wheel on his phone. He can see she is turning the car away, not toward him. That is when he pulls his gun. He does not draw his weapon because she is threatening him with the vehicle, he can see she is turning AWAY from him. He draws it to stop her from leaving. As the car turns away, the agent leans over the hood and fires the first shot. By the second shot, he is already further to the side of the vehicle. By the third shot, the car is driving away. Every single shot was fired after it was clear the vehicle was moving AWAY from him. Those shots were not fired to protect his life. They were fired to stop her from leaving. That is not self-defense. That is lethal force used to prevent escape. That is murder.

🚨BREAKING: Newly released ICE agent camera footage directly contradicts the claim that Renee Nicole Good tried to hit an agent with her vehicle. From the agent’s own angle, it’s clear Renee Nicole Good never posed a threat. In the synchronized footage, you can see her wife attempting to get into the car. They are preparing to leave. Suddenly, multiple ICE agents rush the vehicle. One agent moves toward the driver’s door and attempts to open it, trying to pull her out. Renee backs up. She then clearly turns the wheel AWAY from the agent. The agent has an unobstructed view of the steering wheel on his phone. He can see she is turning the car away, not toward him. That is when he pulls his gun. He does not draw his weapon because she is threatening him with the vehicle, he can see she is turning AWAY from him. He draws it to stop her from leaving. As the car turns away, the agent leans over the hood and fires the first shot. By the second shot, he is already further to the side of the vehicle. By the third shot, the car is driving away. Every single shot was fired after it was clear the vehicle was moving AWAY from him. Those shots were not fired to protect his life. They were fired to stop her from leaving. That is not self-defense. That is lethal force used to prevent escape. That is murder.

Jesus Freakin Congress

328,765 views • 8 months ago

🚨 VIDEO FRAME ANALYSIS. WHAT THE CAMERA ACTUALLY SHOWS 🚨 This still is from ICE Agent Johnathan David Ross's own cellphone footage. It matters bc perspective matters. First. Camera angle. The phone is already canted off the driver side. That means the agent was not directly in front of the vehicle. He’s offset. Side angle. Not a head-on threat. Second. Steering input. Look at the driver’s hands. That is a classic hand-over-hand steering motion. That’s how u turn a wheel to redirect a vehicle. Not how u accelerate straight into someone. The motion is consistent with turning away, not charging forward. Third. Vehicle movement. From the camera’s perspective the vehicle is angling away from the agent, not tracking directly toward him. The front wheels are turned. The hood line shifts laterally. Physics doesn’t lie even when press releases do. Fourth. Agent positioning. Federal use-of-force training is explicit. Do not cross in front of a moving vehicle. Officers are trained to angle off. create distance. disengage. Stepping into the path of a car collapses the decision tree into lethal force. That’s called manufacturing a threat. Fifth. Policy. ICE follows DHS Use of Force Policy. It mirrors DOJ standards. Firearms are not to be discharged at moving vehicles unless deadly force is unavoidable. Officers are expected to move out of the vehicle’s path when feasible. Standing in front of a car then firing violates core training doctrine. Bottom line. The camera angle shows he wasn’t squarely in front. The driver’s hands show she was turning. The vehicle trajectory shows lateral movement away. The agent crossed in front anyway. This isn’t hindsight quarterbacking. This is video. geometry. and the policy ICE agents are trained to follow. Spin fades. Frames don’t. What's your thoughts?

🚨 VIDEO FRAME ANALYSIS. WHAT THE CAMERA ACTUALLY SHOWS 🚨 This still is from ICE Agent Johnathan David Ross's own cellphone footage. It matters bc perspective matters. First. Camera angle. The phone is already canted off the driver side. That means the agent was not directly in front of the vehicle. He’s offset. Side angle. Not a head-on threat. Second. Steering input. Look at the driver’s hands. That is a classic hand-over-hand steering motion. That’s how u turn a wheel to redirect a vehicle. Not how u accelerate straight into someone. The motion is consistent with turning away, not charging forward. Third. Vehicle movement. From the camera’s perspective the vehicle is angling away from the agent, not tracking directly toward him. The front wheels are turned. The hood line shifts laterally. Physics doesn’t lie even when press releases do. Fourth. Agent positioning. Federal use-of-force training is explicit. Do not cross in front of a moving vehicle. Officers are trained to angle off. create distance. disengage. Stepping into the path of a car collapses the decision tree into lethal force. That’s called manufacturing a threat. Fifth. Policy. ICE follows DHS Use of Force Policy. It mirrors DOJ standards. Firearms are not to be discharged at moving vehicles unless deadly force is unavoidable. Officers are expected to move out of the vehicle’s path when feasible. Standing in front of a car then firing violates core training doctrine. Bottom line. The camera angle shows he wasn’t squarely in front. The driver’s hands show she was turning. The vehicle trajectory shows lateral movement away. The agent crossed in front anyway. This isn’t hindsight quarterbacking. This is video. geometry. and the policy ICE agents are trained to follow. Spin fades. Frames don’t. What's your thoughts?

Mr. Gerald Wayne

28,881 views • 8 months ago

🚨BREAKING: New video footage shows ICE agents shooting a man trying to drive away, in Patterson, California… Proving DHS lied AGAIN. In the video, the driver is clearly reversing to get out of a boxed‑in spot. He backs up and accidentally hits an unmarked agent vehicle parked behind him… Not ramming anyone. Not charging an agent. Just trying to get away. That’s when the agents step in front of the car with guns drawn. The driver tries to turn and drive off, and this is when you can see at least one agent open fire. At no point does the driver attempt to strike an ICE agent. At no point is there any credible threat of him “trying to run an officer over.” The agents are not running away, not avoiding the car, not afraid for their lives… they’re standing in front of the car and firing into it. This directly contradicts DHS’s claim that “as officers approached the car, the wanted gang member weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run an officer over” and that they fired only because they were in danger. And this is tragically familiar. This isn’t a split‑second judgment call or a disagreement over technique… This is a pattern: ICE agents opening fire on a person trying to flee. And every time footage comes out, the DHS narrative unravels. Every. Single. Time. Remember that next time someone tells you these shootings are “justified,” or that these agencies are being transparent. The video doesn’t lie… but they sure do.

🚨BREAKING: New video footage shows ICE agents shooting a man trying to drive away, in Patterson, California… Proving DHS lied AGAIN. In the video, the driver is clearly reversing to get out of a boxed‑in spot. He backs up and accidentally hits an unmarked agent vehicle parked behind him… Not ramming anyone. Not charging an agent. Just trying to get away. That’s when the agents step in front of the car with guns drawn. The driver tries to turn and drive off, and this is when you can see at least one agent open fire. At no point does the driver attempt to strike an ICE agent. At no point is there any credible threat of him “trying to run an officer over.” The agents are not running away, not avoiding the car, not afraid for their lives… they’re standing in front of the car and firing into it. This directly contradicts DHS’s claim that “as officers approached the car, the wanted gang member weaponized his vehicle in an attempt to run an officer over” and that they fired only because they were in danger. And this is tragically familiar. This isn’t a split‑second judgment call or a disagreement over technique… This is a pattern: ICE agents opening fire on a person trying to flee. And every time footage comes out, the DHS narrative unravels. Every. Single. Time. Remember that next time someone tells you these shootings are “justified,” or that these agencies are being transparent. The video doesn’t lie… but they sure do.

Jesus Freakin Congress

184,922 views • 5 months ago

Tim Pool is right in his analysis. The officer was NOT in front of her vehicle until AFTER she backed up. The front tires then accelerate while they are pointed towards the agent, and appear to spin out on the ICE. This is all the information the ICE agent had in the moment. Also, there was no reason for her to back up to leave. The road was clear in front of her and the ICE agents were to the left and right of her car. The ICE agent only ended up in front because she backed up. This leads me to believe she wasn’t just trying to leave. Chat - what do you think?

Tim Pool is right in his analysis. The officer was NOT in front of her vehicle until AFTER she backed up. The front tires then accelerate while they are pointed towards the agent, and appear to spin out on the ICE. This is all the information the ICE agent had in the moment. Also, there was no reason for her to back up to leave. The road was clear in front of her and the ICE agents were to the left and right of her car. The ICE agent only ended up in front because she backed up. This leads me to believe she wasn’t just trying to leave. Chat - what do you think?

Adam Francisco

2,343,489 views • 8 months ago

This was back from just after 230pm Eastern, but this is really good from NBC News law enforcement analyst Jim Cavanaugh... “Well, we're seeing a person who was, you know, being stopped in the street, her vehicles across the street, and ICE agents are trying to talk to her. There's a — there's an agent right next to the driver's window, Tom, trying to talk to her, and she accelerates to escape, apparently, you know, we don't know exact her exact motive — motivation, but to — to leave, to not comply with the officer's demands. There's another ICE agent, though, in front of the SUV. And what it will hinge on is the officer's belief — who — who fired the shots, the one who's in front — that he believed he was under threat, imminent threat of death or great bodily harm by being struck by the vehicle. Now, I think what's critical in the case is going to be the angle of shot. For example, if the shots are through the side driver's window, the side window, then, you know, that's not really justifiable use of force because the cars passing you. But if they're from the front and from some of the bullet hole photographs I've looked at online, there appears to be one through the windshield, the front of the windshield, you know, just directly on the — the driver's side fender and a couple more that maybe bullet holes right below that in the body and they said the officer fired three times, you know, this puts him more directly in the path of the vehicle. He has a millisecond to decide if he's going to be run over or not.” “No, you use deadly force because you don't want to be run over, so you're justified to use deadly force to stop the action from running you over or hitting you, even if you're hit with the headlight or the front fender, you could be seriously injured. Now, that's not to say that it was justified. We don't know exactly, Tom, because the body-worn cameras of the ICE agents have to be analyzed. The statements of the agent, and especially the agent who fired his weapon, has to be analyzed. The witness videos have to be looked at. There has to be measurements. Everything has to be looked at carefully. But if it's reasonable that he thought he was going to be run over and he's being assaulted and maybe run over, you know he can use deadly force. Tom, a lot of times people say, well, he didn't think he was going to be run over, but when you're the person that's going to be run over, you know, it's a millisecond you have to decide.”

This was back from just after 230pm Eastern, but this is really good from NBC News law enforcement analyst Jim Cavanaugh... “Well, we're seeing a person who was, you know, being stopped in the street, her vehicles across the street, and ICE agents are trying to talk to her. There's a — there's an agent right next to the driver's window, Tom, trying to talk to her, and she accelerates to escape, apparently, you know, we don't know exact her exact motive — motivation, but to — to leave, to not comply with the officer's demands. There's another ICE agent, though, in front of the SUV. And what it will hinge on is the officer's belief — who — who fired the shots, the one who's in front — that he believed he was under threat, imminent threat of death or great bodily harm by being struck by the vehicle. Now, I think what's critical in the case is going to be the angle of shot. For example, if the shots are through the side driver's window, the side window, then, you know, that's not really justifiable use of force because the cars passing you. But if they're from the front and from some of the bullet hole photographs I've looked at online, there appears to be one through the windshield, the front of the windshield, you know, just directly on the — the driver's side fender and a couple more that maybe bullet holes right below that in the body and they said the officer fired three times, you know, this puts him more directly in the path of the vehicle. He has a millisecond to decide if he's going to be run over or not.” “No, you use deadly force because you don't want to be run over, so you're justified to use deadly force to stop the action from running you over or hitting you, even if you're hit with the headlight or the front fender, you could be seriously injured. Now, that's not to say that it was justified. We don't know exactly, Tom, because the body-worn cameras of the ICE agents have to be analyzed. The statements of the agent, and especially the agent who fired his weapon, has to be analyzed. The witness videos have to be looked at. There has to be measurements. Everything has to be looked at carefully. But if it's reasonable that he thought he was going to be run over and he's being assaulted and maybe run over, you know he can use deadly force. Tom, a lot of times people say, well, he didn't think he was going to be run over, but when you're the person that's going to be run over, you know, it's a millisecond you have to decide.”

Curtis Houck

533,567 views • 8 months ago

An ICE agent was struck by a suspect's vehicle during an attempted arrest in New Jersey, and then opened fire as the driver sped away. The confrontation unfolded along Route 72 in Manahawkin shortly as federal immigration agents moved in to take a suspect into custody. Authorities say the vehicle was hit by gunfire, but the suspect managed to escape and remains on the run. Police say they were not involved in the ICE operation and there is currently no known threat to the public.

An ICE agent was struck by a suspect's vehicle during an attempted arrest in New Jersey, and then opened fire as the driver sped away. The confrontation unfolded along Route 72 in Manahawkin shortly as federal immigration agents moved in to take a suspect into custody. Authorities say the vehicle was hit by gunfire, but the suspect managed to escape and remains on the run. Police say they were not involved in the ICE operation and there is currently no known threat to the public.

Fox News

540,445 views • 3 months ago

BREAKING NEWS An eyewitness with a clear, front-facing view says federal agents shot a woman in the head at close range while she sat in her car, directly contradicting official claims of officer endangerment. The witness was on the driver’s side of the vehicle and states no agents were in front of the car, no agent was struck, and no one was in danger when an agent standing at the driver’s window fired multiple shots. The vehicle only moved after the shooting, as the dying driver’s body slumped back. The car then rolled a few feet and hit a parked vehicle. The witness describes agents yelling, agitated, advancing toward the car, then opening fire. Afterward, agents reportedly approached with guns drawn and forcibly pushed civilians away, including the victim’s wife who was trying to render aid and screaming for someone to call 911. This firsthand account directly undermines claims that the shooting was defensive or unavoidable. The witness says plainly: this was not a vehicle attack. No officer was threatened.

BREAKING NEWS An eyewitness with a clear, front-facing view says federal agents shot a woman in the head at close range while she sat in her car, directly contradicting official claims of officer endangerment. The witness was on the driver’s side of the vehicle and states no agents were in front of the car, no agent was struck, and no one was in danger when an agent standing at the driver’s window fired multiple shots. The vehicle only moved after the shooting, as the dying driver’s body slumped back. The car then rolled a few feet and hit a parked vehicle. The witness describes agents yelling, agitated, advancing toward the car, then opening fire. Afterward, agents reportedly approached with guns drawn and forcibly pushed civilians away, including the victim’s wife who was trying to render aid and screaming for someone to call 911. This firsthand account directly undermines claims that the shooting was defensive or unavoidable. The witness says plainly: this was not a vehicle attack. No officer was threatened.

P a u l ◉

533,275 views • 8 months ago

The liberals are already running into social media with the narrative that the woman driving the car in Minneapolis was told to leave the scene and then was shot. The actual situation is that she was told to get out of the vehicle and she attempted to, and possibly ran over in ice agent when he fired back in self-defense. Don’t believe the lefts propaganda. This was justified.

The liberals are already running into social media with the narrative that the woman driving the car in Minneapolis was told to leave the scene and then was shot. The actual situation is that she was told to get out of the vehicle and she attempted to, and possibly ran over in ice agent when he fired back in self-defense. Don’t believe the lefts propaganda. This was justified.

AmericanPapaBear™

45,228 views • 8 months ago

New: Another tow truck driver illegally tows the vehicle of a federal agent while transferring Carlos Ricardo Parias, a 44-year-old an illegal alien to a hospital after the criminal tried to ram his vehicle at the agents. The agents open fired at the invader and was hit in the elbow. A Marshall agent was also hit on the hand when the bullet ricocheted. This is the second ICE vehicle towed from the hospital.

New: Another tow truck driver illegally tows the vehicle of a federal agent while transferring Carlos Ricardo Parias, a 44-year-old an illegal alien to a hospital after the criminal tried to ram his vehicle at the agents. The agents open fired at the invader and was hit in the elbow. A Marshall agent was also hit on the hand when the bullet ricocheted. This is the second ICE vehicle towed from the hospital.

hernando arce

99,440 views • 11 months ago

It seems that Republicans are trying to gaslight everyone into believing that Dayanne Figueroa rammed into an ICE agent’s car… So let’s break down the video, frame by frame. 1. This is Chicago… a dense, urban area with traffic in every direction. 2. The street is two-way… you can clearly see another car driving toward the camera. 3. The ICE agent, in an unmarked vehicle, is sitting in the road. 4. They then make a very wide turn… onto the left side of the road. 5. At this point, the agent is driving on the wrong side of the road. 6. The ICE agent, seemingly unaware of their surroundings (never ideal while driving in a major city), tries to enter the correct lane… without signaling, and without checking to see if someone’s already in that lane. 7. And it turns out, someone was already in that lane… Note: A federal agent, in an unmarked vehicle, does not have the right of way unless they have their 🚨 on. The ICE agent did NOT have their 🚨 on. 8. So, the ICE agent made an improper and unsafe lane change and hit Dayanne Figueroa’s car. 9. Then, they started to drive away, but decided to kidnapped her first. Hope this helps.

It seems that Republicans are trying to gaslight everyone into believing that Dayanne Figueroa rammed into an ICE agent’s car… So let’s break down the video, frame by frame. 1. This is Chicago… a dense, urban area with traffic in every direction. 2. The street is two-way… you can clearly see another car driving toward the camera. 3. The ICE agent, in an unmarked vehicle, is sitting in the road. 4. They then make a very wide turn… onto the left side of the road. 5. At this point, the agent is driving on the wrong side of the road. 6. The ICE agent, seemingly unaware of their surroundings (never ideal while driving in a major city), tries to enter the correct lane… without signaling, and without checking to see if someone’s already in that lane. 7. And it turns out, someone was already in that lane… Note: A federal agent, in an unmarked vehicle, does not have the right of way unless they have their 🚨 on. The ICE agent did NOT have their 🚨 on. 8. So, the ICE agent made an improper and unsafe lane change and hit Dayanne Figueroa’s car. 9. Then, they started to drive away, but decided to kidnapped her first. Hope this helps.

Jesus Freakin Congress

70,221 views • 10 months ago

In light of the tragic shooting of #ReneeNicoleGood by ICE agent Jonathan David Ross in Minneapolis, here are key facts for transparency and accountability—without calls for violence. People deserve the truth. Bystander footage shows Agent Ross was not in the vehicle's direct path when he fired, raising questions about use of force. The Star Tribune first publicly identified him—not anyone on X or social media. Set the record straight on who "doxxed" first. Court documents reveal Agent Ross was dragged by a vehicle in a June 2025 altercation during an arrest. This history is public record. DHS policy prohibits agents from firing at moving vehicles unless there's an imminent threat of death or serious injury—which the video suggests wasn't the case here. She should have gotten out of the vehicle, complied with the agent, and moved on with her day. None of this would have happened.

In light of the tragic shooting of #ReneeNicoleGood by ICE agent Jonathan David Ross in Minneapolis, here are key facts for transparency and accountability—without calls for violence. People deserve the truth. Bystander footage shows Agent Ross was not in the vehicle's direct path when he fired, raising questions about use of force. The Star Tribune first publicly identified him—not anyone on X or social media. Set the record straight on who "doxxed" first. Court documents reveal Agent Ross was dragged by a vehicle in a June 2025 altercation during an arrest. This history is public record. DHS policy prohibits agents from firing at moving vehicles unless there's an imminent threat of death or serious injury—which the video suggests wasn't the case here. She should have gotten out of the vehicle, complied with the agent, and moved on with her day. None of this would have happened.

Moon

112,623 views • 8 months ago

Like I said yesterday. Ex-FBI agent Stu Kaplan stated that ICE agents are bound by Customs and Border Protection use-of-force policy, which explicitly prohibits placing oneself in front of or behind a moving vehicle, except during limited inspection scenarios. He said this policy exists precisely because people may flee during stops. He argued the agent violated that policy by stepping into the vehicle’s path, thereby manufacturing an exigent circumstance. In Kaplan’s view, the danger was created by the officer’s own actions, not by an intentional attack by the driver. Kaplan emphasized that flight is foreseeable and legally anticipated behavior during law-enforcement encounters. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized that officers must plan for the possibility of flight rather than positioning themselves in a way that turns flight into a deadly-force scenario. He noted that the video shows the driver attempting to turn away, not drive toward the agent, and that the agent began drawing his weapon immediately as the car moved, despite having placed himself in harm’s way. Absent evidence that the woman posed an immediate violent threat such as a prior violent felony or an attempt to use the car as a weapon, Kaplan said deadly force was not justified to stop a fleeing suspect for what appeared to be, at most, misdemeanor conduct. His conclusion was that, despite being strongly pro-law-enforcement, this incident may constitute a “bad shoot” because the officer violated policy and then relied on a danger he helped create to justify lethal force.

Like I said yesterday. Ex-FBI agent Stu Kaplan stated that ICE agents are bound by Customs and Border Protection use-of-force policy, which explicitly prohibits placing oneself in front of or behind a moving vehicle, except during limited inspection scenarios. He said this policy exists precisely because people may flee during stops. He argued the agent violated that policy by stepping into the vehicle’s path, thereby manufacturing an exigent circumstance. In Kaplan’s view, the danger was created by the officer’s own actions, not by an intentional attack by the driver. Kaplan emphasized that flight is foreseeable and legally anticipated behavior during law-enforcement encounters. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have recognized that officers must plan for the possibility of flight rather than positioning themselves in a way that turns flight into a deadly-force scenario. He noted that the video shows the driver attempting to turn away, not drive toward the agent, and that the agent began drawing his weapon immediately as the car moved, despite having placed himself in harm’s way. Absent evidence that the woman posed an immediate violent threat such as a prior violent felony or an attempt to use the car as a weapon, Kaplan said deadly force was not justified to stop a fleeing suspect for what appeared to be, at most, misdemeanor conduct. His conclusion was that, despite being strongly pro-law-enforcement, this incident may constitute a “bad shoot” because the officer violated policy and then relied on a danger he helped create to justify lethal force.

Pete

573,380 views • 8 months ago

🚨BREAKING: An ICE/Border Patrol agent approached a U.S. citizen’s car, opened the door without permission, took his keys, threatened to arrest him if he didn’t prove his citizenship, and STILL refused to return his keys after he showed his U.S. PASSPORT. And then, the agent admitted ON CAMERA that the entire detention was unlawful. And here is what makes this even more disturbing… At no point did the agent claim this man committed an actual crime, but still threatened to arrest him. He was just a person who pulled over near a federal immigration operation. And because of that, the agent walked up to his vehicle, opened his door, took his keys, and threatened to put him in jail unless he proved he was a U.S. citizen. Which is not how constitutional rights work. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The U.S. citizen repeatedly asked… “Why am I being detained?” The agent first claimed he was “suspected of being illegal.” But, they didn’t have evidence to back that claim. And even after showing his U.S. PASSPORT, they refused to give him his keys back… When the U.S. citizen continued questioning why he was detained… the justification changed. Now, the agent claims he was supposedly “impeding an immigration investigation.” The man asked, “How did I impede?” The agent answered, “You pulled up right here.” That was the reason… He pulled over. The man asked, “Did I walk over there?” The agent said, “No.” “You walked to me.” The agent admitted to that. The man never left his car. He never blocked agents. He never interfered with an arrest. He pulled over… and the agent came to him. And note, the issue was never that agent told the U.S. citizen to leave… Then, after failing to justify an excuse for stealing this U.S. citizen’s keys, and threatening to arrest him if he didn’t prove his citizenship, the agent said he detained him because… “You are their boss and you hire illegal aliens.” So, the agent’s justification was not that this U.S. citizen committed a crime, it was that he was connected to people they were investigating. This is exactly why constitutional protections exist. Because if law enforcement can decide someone “looks suspicious,” demand proof of citizenship, seized their property, and threaten to arrest them until they comply with unlawful orders, those rights mean nothing. People have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures… regardless of their appearance, their ethnicity, or who they know. And this agent’s own words expose him: He didn’t stop this man. He didn’t pull him over. He didn’t catch him committing a crime. He approached a U.S. citizen, unlawfully detained him, and then tried to justify it afterward.

🚨BREAKING: An ICE/Border Patrol agent approached a U.S. citizen’s car, opened the door without permission, took his keys, threatened to arrest him if he didn’t prove his citizenship, and STILL refused to return his keys after he showed his U.S. PASSPORT. And then, the agent admitted ON CAMERA that the entire detention was unlawful. And here is what makes this even more disturbing… At no point did the agent claim this man committed an actual crime, but still threatened to arrest him. He was just a person who pulled over near a federal immigration operation. And because of that, the agent walked up to his vehicle, opened his door, took his keys, and threatened to put him in jail unless he proved he was a U.S. citizen. Which is not how constitutional rights work. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. The U.S. citizen repeatedly asked… “Why am I being detained?” The agent first claimed he was “suspected of being illegal.” But, they didn’t have evidence to back that claim. And even after showing his U.S. PASSPORT, they refused to give him his keys back… When the U.S. citizen continued questioning why he was detained… the justification changed. Now, the agent claims he was supposedly “impeding an immigration investigation.” The man asked, “How did I impede?” The agent answered, “You pulled up right here.” That was the reason… He pulled over. The man asked, “Did I walk over there?” The agent said, “No.” “You walked to me.” The agent admitted to that. The man never left his car. He never blocked agents. He never interfered with an arrest. He pulled over… and the agent came to him. And note, the issue was never that agent told the U.S. citizen to leave… Then, after failing to justify an excuse for stealing this U.S. citizen’s keys, and threatening to arrest him if he didn’t prove his citizenship, the agent said he detained him because… “You are their boss and you hire illegal aliens.” So, the agent’s justification was not that this U.S. citizen committed a crime, it was that he was connected to people they were investigating. This is exactly why constitutional protections exist. Because if law enforcement can decide someone “looks suspicious,” demand proof of citizenship, seized their property, and threaten to arrest them until they comply with unlawful orders, those rights mean nothing. People have a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures… regardless of their appearance, their ethnicity, or who they know. And this agent’s own words expose him: He didn’t stop this man. He didn’t pull him over. He didn’t catch him committing a crime. He approached a U.S. citizen, unlawfully detained him, and then tried to justify it afterward.

Jesus Freakin Congress

143,238 views • 1 month ago

I analyzed both video angles and the photo released by DHS of the firearm found on the victim. From looking at this evidence it seems apparent that an ICE agent disarms the victim BEFORE shots are fired, and I was even able to trace it to the vehicle where the photo was taken

I analyzed both video angles and the photo released by DHS of the firearm found on the victim. From looking at this evidence it seems apparent that an ICE agent disarms the victim BEFORE shots are fired, and I was even able to trace it to the vehicle where the photo was taken

Luke Miani

34,884 views • 8 months ago

🚨In Key West, an ICE/Border Patrol agent threatened to PULL A U.S. CITIZEN OUT OF THE CAR because he cursed at an agent… then had the audacity to tell the U.S. citizen to “learn your laws.” So, let’s learn them. In the video, Border Patrol agents pulled over a car of U.S. citizens and demanded everyone hand over their IDs. When the passenger says, “Bitch, fuck you,” an agent asks what he said and then threatens to pull him out of the vehicle if he “says one more thing like that.” The passenger correctly asks: “For what? That’s freedom of speech.” The agent responds: “That’s not how that works. Learn your laws.” Oh, we’re going to… Cursing at a government agent is not, by itself, a crime. The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism, insults, and profanity directed at law enforcement, as long as it is not a physical threat. The government cannot punish people simply for verbally challenging or criticizing law enforcement. And it gets even worse. After the passenger calls the agent a “fucking white cracker,” the agent asks what he called him… and then tells another agent he is “thinking of calling in and arresting this guy.” For what? Because he hurt your feelings? The government does not get to arrest someone for speech they don’t like. And yes, Border Patrol has special authority near the border. That includes operating immigration checkpoints where agents can briefly stop vehicles, without individualized reasonable suspicion, for immigration questioning. But, that is different from a roving patrol stop. When not operating at a checkpoint, Border Patrol needs reasonable suspicion to pull over a vehicle for immigration questioning. And even at a checkpoint, the agents’ authority is not unlimited. A checkpoint stop does not automatically give them the right to search the vehicle, indefinitely detain people, or arrest someone because they said something an agent didn’t like. The Constitution does not say… “You have freedom of speech, unless a federal agent gets offended.” It says the government cannot punish you for exercising that right. And perhaps the most important part of this entire video is… The passenger knew his rights better than the federal agent threatening him. The agent told the U.S. citizen to learn his laws… But maybe the agent should have learned them first.

🚨In Key West, an ICE/Border Patrol agent threatened to PULL A U.S. CITIZEN OUT OF THE CAR because he cursed at an agent… then had the audacity to tell the U.S. citizen to “learn your laws.” So, let’s learn them. In the video, Border Patrol agents pulled over a car of U.S. citizens and demanded everyone hand over their IDs. When the passenger says, “Bitch, fuck you,” an agent asks what he said and then threatens to pull him out of the vehicle if he “says one more thing like that.” The passenger correctly asks: “For what? That’s freedom of speech.” The agent responds: “That’s not how that works. Learn your laws.” Oh, we’re going to… Cursing at a government agent is not, by itself, a crime. The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism, insults, and profanity directed at law enforcement, as long as it is not a physical threat. The government cannot punish people simply for verbally challenging or criticizing law enforcement. And it gets even worse. After the passenger calls the agent a “fucking white cracker,” the agent asks what he called him… and then tells another agent he is “thinking of calling in and arresting this guy.” For what? Because he hurt your feelings? The government does not get to arrest someone for speech they don’t like. And yes, Border Patrol has special authority near the border. That includes operating immigration checkpoints where agents can briefly stop vehicles, without individualized reasonable suspicion, for immigration questioning. But, that is different from a roving patrol stop. When not operating at a checkpoint, Border Patrol needs reasonable suspicion to pull over a vehicle for immigration questioning. And even at a checkpoint, the agents’ authority is not unlimited. A checkpoint stop does not automatically give them the right to search the vehicle, indefinitely detain people, or arrest someone because they said something an agent didn’t like. The Constitution does not say… “You have freedom of speech, unless a federal agent gets offended.” It says the government cannot punish you for exercising that right. And perhaps the most important part of this entire video is… The passenger knew his rights better than the federal agent threatening him. The agent told the U.S. citizen to learn his laws… But maybe the agent should have learned them first.

Jesus Freakin Congress

332,436 views • 1 month ago

Rep. Nancy Mace: "It appears that the ICE agent was struck by the car, and in the first video you just showed you can see the agent limping away after he fired shots. So I agree with President Trump and Secretary Noem that this was an act of domestic terrorism. These were, it appears, paid agitators."

Rep. Nancy Mace: "It appears that the ICE agent was struck by the car, and in the first video you just showed you can see the agent limping away after he fired shots. So I agree with President Trump and Secretary Noem that this was an act of domestic terrorism. These were, it appears, paid agitators."

Aaron Rupar

331,352 views • 8 months ago

This is my reasonable take on the ICE Agent situation in Minneapolis. The woman assaulted an ICE Officer. Out of three shots that I can see, only one appeared to be done in self defense. It is questionable if the other two were done while the woman was an imminent threat to the public. This is not as black and white as people are making it out to be.

This is my reasonable take on the ICE Agent situation in Minneapolis. The woman assaulted an ICE Officer. Out of three shots that I can see, only one appeared to be done in self defense. It is questionable if the other two were done while the woman was an imminent threat to the public. This is not as black and white as people are making it out to be.

Anna Matson

25,827 views • 8 months ago

Vance: “What's not reasonable is for so many of you to plaster all over the media that this was an innocent woman and that the ICE agent committed murder…The idea that this was not justified is absurd."

Vance: “What's not reasonable is for so many of you to plaster all over the media that this was an innocent woman and that the ICE agent committed murder…The idea that this was not justified is absurd."

The Bulwark

16,751 views • 8 months ago