The body cam footage from the ICE agent doesn’t change the underlying issue in this shooting.
As I mentioned in the original post, this may be intentional or it may be because of bad training.
The character of the person shot, Good, is not the issue. When I voiced concern about the shooting, it was not because of some “left” narrative that she is such an upstanding person.
As I try to do but sometimes fail, I focus on what happened, not necessarily to whom it happened.
I mentioned training in the original post for a reason. Law enforcement is hard as hell. I could never do it. Aside from the everyday difficulty, dealing in life and death situations is beyond my character to handle. Among other things, good cops are a mix of integrity, fortitude, and training.
Training is what allows a good cop the best chance to act in a way that aligns with their integrity. In tense situations, the best intention will fall apart without it.
As for Minneapolis, I am going to approach this from the video/tactical perspective first and then touch on my philosophy about governments.
First Video
What I saw in the first video was the officer approaching the car from the front passenger side, crossing over to the front driver’s side of the car. The driver backed up, the front wheels turned to the right (away from the officers) and then started to proceed. As this happened, the officer on the front driver’s side drew his sidearm and fired as the car moved.
Second Video
In the second video, I saw(from the officer’s perspective) the officer in a verbal exchange with the passenger(this was not apparent on the first video). The passenger got into the car as it backed up and as the officer crossed over to the front driver’s side of the car. Then I saw the driver turn the steering wheel to the right, away from the officers and start to move forward and contact the officer with the driver’s fender – more a sound than a visual – (“clipped” the office is how I’ve heard it described), at which point the officer’s camera dropped.
There are two things that jump out at me about this situation.
First:
There are various considerations around when there is a use of force, and why that situation arose.
As late as 2025, SCOTUS has ruled that the immediate situation alone (car moving toward an officer) cannot be the only determinant in whether deadly force is allowable, what is called the ‘moment-of-threat” rule cannot be applied. Rather the totality of the situation must be considered.
One of the factors the courts look at in totality is if the officer using deadly force created or significantly contributed to the situation that posed the threat. “Officer-created-jeapardy” does not justify use of deadly force.
This is one of the reasons I mentioned training.
There are a lot of training sources for law enforcement. But, common among them, and in particular at the federal level, are tactics around safety and de-escalation. Among these: Don’t place yourself in front of a vehicle (this is “officer-created-jeapardy”); if possible, step out of the way of a moving vehicle (de-escalation); don’t fire at a moving vehicle (there are cases in which the vehicle posed a threat to the public, thus allowing force).
Assessing and reacting to a situation like this, for the average person, is nearly impossible. But, officers aren’t supposed to be average. Their training is supposed to make them far better than average.
You may not like the rules around use of force, but they are there, and until changed, we should expect them to be followed.
Second:
The timing of the firing was after the officer was “clipped” and while the driver was trying to flee. He wasn’t firing to prevent contact. There was no threat of additional contact.
We can disagree about the intention of the driver; but the timing of the shots was after the contact and while the vehicle was moving away.
Based on both videos, I will contend that the contact was unintentional, and was clearly not life-threatening. But, with adrenalin and literally no time to assess, an officer in the moment may not be able to realize that. This is why training is so important.
My perspective on Government.
The government and its agents hold all the power.
We have a Constitution that is supposed to provide guardrails in the use of that power. The Constitution guides the making of our laws by Congress, and the courts assess if those laws and the implementation of those laws, abide by it and the amendments to it. The Executive branch implements the laws and is the only branch that has the capacity to “take action,” or have a direct impact on the citizens through its various agencies.
For 250 years, we have operated on the honor system. If the leaders in government decide not to abide by the rules, there is little the citizens can do about it. When Congress passes a law, or the courts make a ruling, the Executive branch is supposed to abide by these. But there is no mechanism to ensure that it does. Up to now (for the most part and with a few exceptions), administrations have honored this approach.
Over the past year, the administration has openly defied the laws passed by Congress and the rulings of the courts. I have posted on this ad nauseum on FB, with specific examples of violation of court rulings and Constitutional amendments. The President openly states that his only limit is his own morality. From this perspective, the rule of law no longer exists.
So, when a situation like Minneapolis arises, we have to ask the question, “Is this a training issue, or is there a strategy behind these escalations?”
This is beyond me and my personal interest. I am old enough that I may not live long into the repercussions of this administration’s disregard for the rule of law. I do, however, seriously question if my descendants will live in a free America.
