All the claims that the car did not hit the agent rely upon the first video, with the worst angle of all of the videos, and does not take into account the first person view.
The video shot by the agent in question is the most indicative of the car hitting the agent, as CBS found:
>Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent.
>"That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.
If someone comes at me with a knife or a gun and I shoot them in the head, the knife or gun would no longer be a threatening instrument (at least in the immediate future).
If a car is driving toward me (essentially the only way it could cause me harm) and I shoot the driver in the head, then the car keeps driving toward me and, lacking a driver, threatens not only me but also others in the immediate vicinity because it will keep moving. (Witness how the car in this instance keeps going and crashes.)
Another scenario. It's illegal (at least in Florida) to make a left or right turn while pedestrians are in any part of the crosswalk. Suppose I'm crossing the road, duly within the crosswalk and with a valid "walk" signal, and someone makes a turn while I'm in the crosswalk and is headed right toward me. The car being a lethal weapon, am I justified in drawing my firearm and shooting the driver in the head in self defense?
>The car being a lethal weapon, am I justified in drawing my firearm and shooting the driver in the head in self defense?
Not in Minneapolis because it is a duty to retreat state for regular citizens. Therefore your scenario really creates a false equivalence because the cops have special privileges to kill people in the case they use a 'deadly weapon' due to the 'fleeing violent felon' exceptions for cops that allows them to be a summary executioner in cases of clear flight.
To begin, I simply posed a hypothetical to explore the topic.
Still, whether this (or any) federal officer violates a person's Fourth Amendment rights (by way of exercising excessive force) is subject to a standard of objective reasonableness under the circumstances. E.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). That applies regardless of state law (on account of the Supremacy Clause).
It only applies regardless of state law to the extent that the officer is both up to and at that point acting without malice in an objectively reasonable belief that that there actions are within their lawful federal duties (not merely the policy directives and goals of the federal superiors), because otherwise Supremacy Clause immunity does not apply, and state law controls fully.
Given ICE's very narrow jurisdiction (despite their current aggressive actions and the clear approval of their federal executive superiors for that aggression) this is a real concern about their content even before the shooting.
Graham isn't an immunity case and specifically takes subjective motivation (including malice) out of the analysis. The issue is one of reasonableness of the bodily seizure.
Was it objectively reasonable under the circumstances for the ICE officer to shoot the driver in the head? Not in my view — and apparently not in the views of the other officers on the scene — based on their actions, anyway. It seems to me that excessive force was used, violating the driver's constitutional right to be free of unreasonable bodily seizure, which resulted, tragically, in her death.
Of note, too, are today's resignations of several DOJ attorneys in the Minnesota office over the refusal to advance the investigation of the ICE officer and the push to instead investigate the victim's widow, of all people.
All the claims that the car did not hit the agent rely upon the first video, with the worst angle of all of the videos, and does not take into account the first person view.
The video shot by the agent in question is the most indicative of the car hitting the agent, as CBS found:
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/experts-analyze-new-v...
>Johnson said his biggest takeaway from the video was a crunching sound he heard immediately before the gunshots, which he believes is the sound of the SUV hitting the ICE agent.
>"That data point for me shows that there was contact made with the agent, who is now in reasonable fear, who could clearly articulate being hit with an SUV as reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. And then the shots were fired," said Johnson.
If someone comes at me with a knife or a gun and I shoot them in the head, the knife or gun would no longer be a threatening instrument (at least in the immediate future).
If a car is driving toward me (essentially the only way it could cause me harm) and I shoot the driver in the head, then the car keeps driving toward me and, lacking a driver, threatens not only me but also others in the immediate vicinity because it will keep moving. (Witness how the car in this instance keeps going and crashes.)
Another scenario. It's illegal (at least in Florida) to make a left or right turn while pedestrians are in any part of the crosswalk. Suppose I'm crossing the road, duly within the crosswalk and with a valid "walk" signal, and someone makes a turn while I'm in the crosswalk and is headed right toward me. The car being a lethal weapon, am I justified in drawing my firearm and shooting the driver in the head in self defense?
>The car being a lethal weapon, am I justified in drawing my firearm and shooting the driver in the head in self defense?
Not in Minneapolis because it is a duty to retreat state for regular citizens. Therefore your scenario really creates a false equivalence because the cops have special privileges to kill people in the case they use a 'deadly weapon' due to the 'fleeing violent felon' exceptions for cops that allows them to be a summary executioner in cases of clear flight.
To begin, I simply posed a hypothetical to explore the topic.
Still, whether this (or any) federal officer violates a person's Fourth Amendment rights (by way of exercising excessive force) is subject to a standard of objective reasonableness under the circumstances. E.g., Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). That applies regardless of state law (on account of the Supremacy Clause).
It only applies regardless of state law to the extent that the officer is both up to and at that point acting without malice in an objectively reasonable belief that that there actions are within their lawful federal duties (not merely the policy directives and goals of the federal superiors), because otherwise Supremacy Clause immunity does not apply, and state law controls fully.
Given ICE's very narrow jurisdiction (despite their current aggressive actions and the clear approval of their federal executive superiors for that aggression) this is a real concern about their content even before the shooting.
Graham isn't an immunity case and specifically takes subjective motivation (including malice) out of the analysis. The issue is one of reasonableness of the bodily seizure.
Was it objectively reasonable under the circumstances for the ICE officer to shoot the driver in the head? Not in my view — and apparently not in the views of the other officers on the scene — based on their actions, anyway. It seems to me that excessive force was used, violating the driver's constitutional right to be free of unreasonable bodily seizure, which resulted, tragically, in her death.
Of note, too, are today's resignations of several DOJ attorneys in the Minnesota office over the refusal to advance the investigation of the ICE officer and the push to instead investigate the victim's widow, of all people.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/13/doj-attorney...